Sliders.tv → Sliders Bboard → American Politics: Discuss and Debate
Unbelievable violent imagery from the EX-President:
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/17738 … 35916?s=20
https://x.com/ruthbenghiat/status/17738 … 71704?s=20
https://x.com/ruthbenghiat/status/17744 … 71626?s=20
Here's the thing. I think Trump is a wannabe dictator. I think he is extremely dangerous, and I think he's willing to use his followers to go after people that threaten him. Instead of using the police or the military, I think Trump wants to use his loyal followers to do his dirty work because (and he's been right so far), he has deniability in his actions. If he ordered the military to attack the Capitol, then he's crossed the Rubicon. If he nudges his followers in a certain direction, he can defend himself.
I think the pick-up truck is obviously in extremely poor taste. I think it's extremely inappropriate for a presidential candidate to send that image out to the masses. But when you compare it to what Kathy Griffin did with the beheaded Trump, I think it's pretty bland. I think Trump is pretty evil, but I assume he didn't "tweet" it to his followers because he wants Biden dead or wants them to go after him. I think he thought it was funny and that's it. He's a child.
If they want to investigate the owner of the truck, that's fine. But since the imagery isn't nearly as violent as what Griffin did and since I don't think Trump was legitimately threatening Biden, I think this is something that we (meaning those that are anti-Trump) should drop.
Here's the thing. I think Trump is a wannabe dictator. I think he is extremely dangerous, and I think he's willing to use his followers to go after people that threaten him. Instead of using the police or the military, I think Trump wants to use his loyal followers to do his dirty work because (and he's been right so far), he has deniability in his actions. If he ordered the military to attack the Capitol, then he's crossed the Rubicon. If he nudges his followers in a certain direction, he can defend himself.
I think the pick-up truck is obviously in extremely poor taste. I think it's extremely inappropriate for a presidential candidate to send that image out to the masses. But when you compare it to what Kathy Griffin did with the beheaded Trump, I think it's pretty bland. I think Trump is pretty evil, but I assume he didn't "tweet" it to his followers because he wants Biden dead or wants them to go after him. I think he thought it was funny and that's it. He's a child.
If they want to investigate the owner of the truck, that's fine. But since the imagery isn't nearly as violent as what Griffin did and since I don't think Trump was legitimately threatening Biden, I think this is something that we (meaning those that are anti-Trump) should drop.
Kathy Griffin is a heroine. LOL. And she's all right in my book. She only did it to an inanimate object, for cryin' out loud.
Trump (Hitler) did it to a real photo of the President. Big difference.
And few if any will change their minds. If you have any sort of acceptance of Trump being the psychopath he is, but that his "policies" somehow helped you, there will be no changing of minds. I think the greater risk is that people will simply not vote against Trump. They will stay home, or will vote for a bigger nutcase like Kennedy. Biden is not getting those voters. They think he's too old, and blame him for inflation and crimes of migrants.
Former Trump officials are among the most vocal opponents of returning him to the White House
https://apnews.com/article/former-trump … ce=Twitter
NEW YORK (AP) — Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has called him a “threat to democracy.” Former national security adviser John Bolton has declared him “unfit to be president.” And former Vice President Mike Pence has declined to endorse him, citing “profound differences.”
As Donald Trump seeks the presidency for a third time, he is being vigorously opposed by a vocal contingent of former officials who are stridently warning against his return to power and offering dire predictions for the country and the rule of law if his campaign succeeds.
It’s a striking chorus of detractors, one without precedent in the modern era, coming from those who witnessed first-hand his conduct in office and the turmoil that followed.
Sarah Matthews, a former Trump aide who testified before the House Jan. 6 committee and is among those warning about the threat he poses, said it’s “mind-boggling” how many members of his senior staff have denounced him.
“These are folks who saw him up close and personal and saw his leadership style,” Matthews said.
“The American people should listen to what these folks are saying because it should be alarming that the people that Trump hired to work for him a first term are saying that he’s unfit to serve for a second term.”
Yet the critics remain a distinct minority. Republican lawmakers and officials across the party have endorsed Trump’s bid — some begrudgingly, others with fervor and enthusiasm. Many aides and Cabinet officials who served under Trump are onboard for another term, something Trump’s campaign is quick to highlight.
“The majority of the people who served in President Trump’s cabinet and in his administration, like the majority of Americans, have overwhelmingly endorsed his candidacy to beat Crooked Joe Biden and take back the White House,” said Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung.
Still, the Biden campaign has trumpeted the criticism of former Trump officials in statements and social media posts, hoping to convince at least some Republican voters — including those who backed other candidates during the GOP primary — that they cannot support his candidacy.
“Those who worked with Donald Trump at the most senior levels of his administration believe he is too dangerous, too selfish and too extreme to ever lead our country again — we agree,” said Biden campaign spokesman Ammar Moussa.
In many ways, the schism among former Trump officials is an extension of his time in the White House. Friction was constant as Trump’s demands ran into resistance from some officials and aides who refused requests that they found misguided, unrealistic and, at times, flatly illegal. Firings were frequent. Many quit.
Staff upheaval was particularly intense in the chaotic weeks after the 2020 election as Trump worked to overturn his election loss to Biden. Trump summoned supporters to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, as his falsehoods about a stolen election became the rallying cry for supporters who violently breached the U.S. Capitol. Many people serving in the administration quit in protest, including Matthews.
Trump’s attempt to remain in office included a bitter pressure campaign against Pence, who as vice president was tasked with presiding over the count of the Electoral College ballots on Jan. 6. Trump was adamant that Pence should prevent Biden from becoming president, something he had no power to do. Pence had to flee the Senate chamber on Jan. 6 as rioters stormed the building to chants of “Hang Mike Pence!”
Pence recently said he “cannot in good conscience” endorse Trump because of Jan. 6 and other issues, despite being proud of what they achieved together.
And Pence is not alone.
Esper, who was fired by Trump days after the 2020 election, clashed with the then-president over several issues, including Trump’s push to deploy military troops to respond to civil unrest after the killing of George Floyd by police in 2020.
In a recent interview with HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher,” Esper repeated a warning that Trump is “a threat to democracy” and added, “I think there’s a lot to be concerned about.”
“There’s no way I’ll vote for Trump, but every day that Trump does something crazy, the door to voting for Biden opens a little bit more, and that’s where I’m at,” Esper said.
Among Trump’s most vocal critics are former aides who worked closely with him in the White House, particularly a trio who gained prominence testifying about the Jan. 6 attack and Trump’s push to overturn the election.
The group includes Matthews, former Trump White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin and Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows. They have given a series of interviews in recent months opposing their former boss.
“Fundamentally, a second Trump term could mean the end of American democracy as we know it, and I don’t say that lightly,” Griffin told ABC in December.
John Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, had his own long falling-out with Trump. Kelly, in a lengthy October statement to CNN, described Trump as “a person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators” and “has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law.”
Olivia Troye, a former Pence adviser who left the White House in 2020, and former press secretary Stephanie Grisham, who resigned Jan. 6, are both outspoken critics who said they didn’t vote for Trump in 2020.
Even Bill Barr, Trump’s former attorney general who has not ruled out voting for him again, has referred to Trump as “a consummate narcissist” who “constantly engages in reckless conduct that puts his political followers at risk and the conservative and Republican agenda at risk.”
Still, the ranks of former Trump officials opposing his bid are greatly outnumbered by those who are supportive.
Linda McMahon, who headed the Small Business Administration under Trump, is co-chairing a major fundraiser for the former president on Saturday in Florida, along with former Trump Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.
McMahon is also chair of the board of The America First Policy Institute, which is packed with supportive former Trump officials and has been described as an “administration in waiting” for a second Trump term.
The institute is headed by Brooke Rollins, Trump’s former domestic policy chief, and counts Pence’s national security adviser and retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg among its chairs, along with former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Trump’s U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer, and former National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow.
Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has campaigned for Trump, as has former Housing Secretary Ben Carson, who called him “a friend of America.”
Trump’s also got the backing of former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, former Interior Secretary and Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke, and Russell Vought, who ran Trump’s Office of Management and Budget.
Vought said in a post on X that Trump is “the only person I trust to take a wrecking ball to the Deep State.”
Trump supporters are also quick to dismiss critics in the party.
Carmen McVane, who attended Trump’s rally Tuesday in Green Bay, Wisconsin, said those who speak negatively against Trump or refuse to endorse are RINOs, or Republicans In Name Only, and will only help Biden and Democrats.
“There’s a lot of RINOs who don’t do what they’re supposed to do,” McVane said. “It’s time for everyone to back who we have and go full force ahead.”
This is what Biden needs to create *tons* of ads on. They need to be properly targeted, but non-MAGA Republicans that liked the first Trump administration need to know that the second one is not going to be like the first.
Again, the tactic needs to be to very clearly articulate that Trump is not a normal Republican or politician. He's a f*%#ing psychopath out for revenge.
RFK Jr. campaign director literally admitting they are running to allow Trump to win.
Polls are slowly (but surely) shifting toward Biden. And I saw a couple polls where RFK is siphoning votes off Trump more than Biden. Which makes sense as RFK continues to look more and more MAGA. I imagine the only people that would vote for Biden but choose RFK are doing so because they're critically misinformed or uneducated on the matter. RFK is to the right of Trump so it would take a really special voter to abandon Biden for him. The RFK voters I see online are DeSantis refugees who agree with him on the anti-vaxx stuff. I don't know what RFK's views on abortion are, but if they're conservative, then Trump's abortion message could push more Trump voters to him.
I don't think there's any way RFK gets the 11% he's polling at, but I figure more Biden voters will come home than Trump ones. I still think this is a miscalculation on Trump's part.
Trump has a tiny lead on the RCP average and Biden is winning on the Economist average. Obviously, Biden needs to win the national polls by a few points to win the electoral college, but those polls are also shifting. Pennsylvania has been looking pretty good, and Wisconsin and Georgia are trending toward him. Michigan looks bad right now, and Nevada might not be possible. But if the trends continue, I think things will be fine.
LOL, I follow Ron also. It's nonsensical to blame President's for gas prices, and in most cases, inflation, given there's not a ton an administration can do about that. However, the messaging from Biden is flat out terrible. He needs to stop boasting about the economy as if it's absolutely supreme. For many people, it's not. Even if they're doing well, there is tremendous anxiety and anger over the ridiculous way in which you're being ripped off for every day expenses. He has to be more empathetic.
I saw something this morning about Biden will now openly question whether he has the authority to "close the border" with executive actions. Trump tried many of these, they were usually shot down in court, but it took time. Biden should have been issuing these orders 6 months ago. Even if they are eventually stopped, who cares, at least you can say you tried SOMETHING!
To me, the reason Biden approval is this bad is inaction. He seems to just let issues fester and fester, allows the media to drive the entire narrative, gets beat up, and still does nothing. Frankly the border inaction is just stunning at this point. And while he has no control over Netanyahu, he looks completely sidelined. To think, a US President has zero control? Why are you still sending military aid without strings? What is your leverage then? Ukraine is another one, where there's been zero action on aid. Yes, the GOP is holding it up, but the net result is a big negative for Biden, because he's let completely neutered.
Biden is never going to reclaim an advantage with the economy or immigration, he's sunk by close to double digits on those, and it's largely his own inaction, or worse messaging, to blame. If abortion or threats to democracy creep up the latter in importance, he will do better. It's really about what are the crucial issues in the months leading up to voting.
My friend is a bit of an expert on evangelicals, and he wonders if the Trump messaging on abortion is going to drive some of them away. To them, any surrender on abortion is unacceptable. They didn't even like that he used the term "abortion rights" at all. I don't buy it...maybe some of them will leave the top of the ballot blank, but I assume it won't actually matter.
The polling is becoming more encouraging. A poll came out today that had Biden only down 2 in North Carolina. There might be an opportunity to flip a state like that that's been trending blue. If Trump does something stupid like try to flip New York, it could leave an opening in some places. Ironically, Trump could try some of the stuff Hillary tried, and it could leave Biden an opportunity.
It's important to remember that, while the electoral college helps Republicans, Biden just needs to play a little bit of defense. He doesn't have to win all the states he won in 2020 - he just needs to win half of the six toss up states. If he can win Pennsylvania, he just needs to win Michigan and Wisconsin or Arizona and Georgia or Georgia and Wisconsin or Michigan and Arizona. Lots of roads to win. Trump doesn't need to sweep all those states but he needs a lot of them. If Biden can do something surprising and win North Carolina, it gets even easier. Trump would essentially need to run the table of the rest of the states.
I feel better than I did a few weeks ago. And that's before you take into account any of the abortion measures (which makes Arizona more likely and even puts something like Florida in play) and left-leaning polling errors.
My friend is a bit of an expert on evangelicals, and he wonders if the Trump messaging on abortion is going to drive some of them away. To them, any surrender on abortion is unacceptable. They didn't even like that he used the term "abortion rights" at all. I don't buy it...maybe some of them will leave the top of the ballot blank, but I assume it won't actually matter.
Simply, NO. Nothing will dissuade them. One thing to keep in mind is this, the idea that "Evangelical" voters are in love with Trump is a misnomer. They are Republicans mainly, so they vote that ticket. They don't particularly care for them. Furthermore, just because a block is ID'd as evangelical, doesn't indicate how "devout" one might be. You could ID me as Catholic, but I don't practice at all.
I feel better than I did a few weeks ago. And that's before you take into account any of the abortion measures (which makes Arizona more likely and even puts something like Florida in play) and left-leaning polling errors.
Food inflation continues to be an outright disaster, and that is driving blue collar voters away. Arizona is back in play after that ridiculous abortion situation. Trump is trying to have it both ways, he can't. He boasted about Roe vs. Wade being stopped, and this is the result. "Leave it to the states" is the most putrid cop out there's been, with regards to rights being abandoned.
[Simply, NO. Nothing will dissuade them. One thing to keep in mind is this, the idea that "Evangelical" voters are in love with Trump is a misnomer. They are Republicans mainly, so they vote that ticket. They don't particularly care for them. Furthermore, just because a block is ID'd as evangelical, doesn't indicate how "devout" one might be. You could ID me as Catholic, but I don't practice at all.
I mean I told him that I think evangelicals are extremely radicalized - that if Trump told them to worship him instead of Jesus, they'd happily toss their bibles and crosses in exchange for a golden Trump statue. But he disagrees. He goes to an evangelical church (he's liberal) and he has a PhD in religious studies (or something like that). He says that abortion is the one area they won't follow him down.
This is well known right wing "entertainer?" Matt Walsh. He's extreme right wing, and he hated what Trump and Kari Lake had to say. He has 2.2MM followers on twitter, and he's very outspoken that this was the wrong thing to do and he's not willing to budge. It wouldn't take many people to decide they can't vote for someone that supports any "abortion rights" and either not vote or leave the top of the ballot empty. And remember these aren't normal Republican voters. The voters that Trump has added are low-propensity voters so it wouldn't take much for them to just not go on election day (because they won't mail in vote or vote early).
https://www.facebook.com/MattWalshBlog/ … 646268783/
Now the thing about Trump is that he's never been pro-life. This was the issue with him in 2016 in the Republican primaries. And it was the issue when he was up against DeSantis. It didn't matter this year because the abortion folks went all in on Trump. But as much as Trump brags about defeating Roe, I cannot imagine Trump actually cared about that. He didn't pick those judges, and he probably has no idea what they stand for. He did what the Federalist Society told him to do or he did whatever they paid him to do.
Trump doesn't want to ban abortion. Otherwise he'd have 50 kids, and he hates the ones he already has.
As some of these older polls age out of aggregators, Biden is starting to take small leads in overall polling most places. Now a small lead nationally won't do it, and I'm pretty sure state-level polling still has Trump with enough states to win the electoral college. But it's a step in the right direction.
Experts seem to think Trump is going to lose this hush money case. I would think especially if Trump is muttering himself like a crazy person the whole time. It won't give him any jail time, but he'll legally be a convicted felon if it happens. We'll see, again if that happens, if it affects what independents think. I assume MAGA and democrat voters are pretty locked in with their votes no matter the result of the trial.
The situation with Trump's $175 million bond is... weird, to put it mildly. Something is off.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-l … al-1890249
Something is really off with the company for Trump's bond:
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/16/absurd … -his-face/
Yeah, I don't understand why Trump wouldn't just put the money up himself? I'm guessing it's the principle of it, if that's even true? I also don't understand what the company gets out of it outside of promises of future benefits from a possible future president?
I think the obvious thing is that a) Trump doesn't have the cash to secure the bond and b) the only company that was willing to do it is sketchy and probably not following the rules. I could be wrong though and am not an expert on this stuff.
******
Jury selection in the hush money case is rolling along. I still worry, especially since right wing media is actively encouraging this, that a MAGA person will get on the jury and hold things up. If Trump gets off because a jury of his peers didn't find the case strong enough, so be it. But the trial needs to be fair. Hopefully if someone is able to get onto the jury that they can be weeded out and replaced with an alternate.
Trump is either using the Charles Schwab cash account as collateral somewhere else, or he's wishing to continue earning interest on that $175 million. Versus paying the bond fee. I would say his underlying business "philosophy" is probably most notable, which is to avoid using your own money, for anything.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 … s-00152863
Meanwhile, the current DC crisis is whether Speaker Mike can get anything through his caucus of block heads? He has bizarrely proposed to offer four separate bills to aid Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and I believe the border. Absurd considering, if they get a vote (will pass), they'd likely be repackaged as one bill that goes to the Senate.
Beyond that, a PAC affiliated with a bitter Kevin McCarthy are running ads against the GOP (and Dem) members who voted him out. Ironically, the "American Prosperity Alliance" is running spots in GOP primaries against those who rejected the bipartisan Border bill, infamously scuttled by defendant Trump.
The Supreme Court are currently hearing arguments from a January 6 defendant over whether the charges of Obstructing an Act of Congress should stick. If they vote that down, obviously that would derail countless insurrection cases, perhaps including a good portion of Trump's.
Meanwhile, the current DC crisis is whether Speaker Mike can get anything through his caucus of block heads? He has bizarrely proposed to offer four separate bills to aid Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and I believe the border. Absurd considering, if they get a vote (will pass), they'd likely be repackaged as one bill that goes to the Senate.
Yeah, I don't see how this helps Republicans. If they kept the bills together, there could be deniability for GOP House members that want to continue to be anti-Ukraine ("Look, we needed to get money to Israel and Taiwan and the cost was money to Ukraine. The good outweighed the bad" but also "I sent money to Ukraine and helped them" - they can play both sides). Now they have to be on record on one or the other. If there are pro-Ukraine independents, they could be swayed one way or the other by this.
On the other hand, if the Republicans think that they can use Israel as a wedge issue, they can force Democrats to side with either Israel or Palestine. I could see some benefit there, but I don't know.
I saw an interview with Johnson where he was saying all the right things about Ukraine. It sounds like maybe he has some sort of assurance that he can survive any move against him. If so...I guess that's good.
Look, I think it's tantamount to support Ukraine, regardless of the November outcome. Unrest is building in Georgia, and has been in Moldova. Putin is a thug. Israel vs. Iran hopefully shall tamp down again.
Here's where I see this thing....
There is a clear move to Biden among older, whiter folk, particularly in the Midwest. That was evident in the Haley vote, and these are people who vote all the time, and they are sick of Trump. They were turned off permanently by January 6th, and these are the voters who Biden has to hammer away at Trump's election cabal from 2020. A portion were two-time Trump voters, and losing anybody is a major problem for Orange.
Abortion access may or may not play a massive role in swing states, particularly Arizona now, but others to come. Younger woman are the most likely, but they're already backing Democrats big time anyway. What it will do is to fortify their resolve to get out and vote.
The youth vote? Particularly young men of color. They have clearly moved to Trump, possibly RFK Jr. Will they even vote? All hard to say. You also have the uber-left who have Palestine on the brain, now upset with Biden. Where do they go? Definitely not Trump. Could be a problem in Michigan, although the DNC has been very successful up there.
Lastly, there's the economy. Most indicators are very good for Joe. Inflation is a problem, no question, it's not going away. Cost of living is a disaster, causing widespread angst, but people are still spending like drunken sailors, so what does it really prove? I do think the casual, less-informed voter, is probably going to favor Trump to a degree on this. Will it matter? Like the youth vote, just really don't know how motivated these disgruntled are to vote? They don't seem to like either candidate, and most likely will not vote. Voting third party is a waste of time, and these are unmotivated people in the current climate.
As "Mr. Hopium" Rosenberg continues to stress, it's been a good month for Dems, bad for Trump.
Another poll came out that had Biden winning big if Trump is convicted. The polling was a bit misleading because it referred to it as a "serious crime", and I'm sure people won't consider the NY case a "serious crime" if they know the details. Some will and will disregard. Some won't know enough about it and will consider it serious because it's a criminal conviction. I assume he loses a ton of votes but not the +9 the poll indicated.
The Kennedy family did a huge event where they wholeheartedly endorsed Biden. I don't know if the media will cover that event, but if they do, it should mean more Biden-to-Kennedy voters go away. Again, there's almost no overlap between Biden and RFK other than the name, and if people are voting for RFK because he's a Kennedy (and nothing else), then this news (and I assume the next dozen times they work with the Kennedys) will dissuade some. The people that know who Kennedy is and are voting for him have got to be mostly far-right people dissatisfied that Trump isn't far right enough.
In the Trump trial, we have a jury. I'm nervous that something is going to happen to one of these jurors, especially as Fox News is actively trying to intimidate the jury. But the trial could start Monday morning so maybe it'll go quickly.
Trump's $175 million bond was confirmed by the judge after some changes, so he'll be able to appeal without "losing assets." That appeal likely will take quite some time, into next year I'm sure.
Hush money trial has begun. I think that Alvin Bragg will present a fairly strong case with evidence and compelling witnesses. The focus will be on accounting/business practices mainly. Whether Trump wins or loses, he will be stuck in court, pouting, for up to 6 weeks while Biden is basically all over the place campaigning.
Meanwhile, beginning at Columbia University and spreading to many schools nationwide, we have the pro-Hamas putrid protests, which I cannot expect will bode well for the DNC convention in Chicago this summer. Frankly, it's probably going to be an utter disaster.
It's tricky to protest what Israel is doing without some pro-Palestine stuff creeping in. Israel's offensive is so over the top they've made Hamas sympathetic, not an easy task.
Hush money trial has begun. I think that Alvin Bragg will present a fairly strong case with evidence and compelling witnesses. The focus will be on accounting/business practices mainly. Whether Trump wins or loses, he will be stuck in court, pouting, for up to 6 weeks while Biden is basically all over the place campaigning.
Two interesting things have come from this:
- The judge seemed really irritated with Trump's lawyers during the hearing on the gag order. I think the lawyers are going to struggle to toe that line between trying to do their job but also trying to keep Trump happy.
- I'm sorta convinced that Trump wants to go to jail to fight the gag order for the optics. It'll be interesting to see if the judge goes for it or not.
All that really matters for this is the electoral consequences so some scatterbrained thoughts:
- I don't know if politically unengaged undecideds are paying attention to this case. If they aren't, I think that could potentially be a win for Trump depending on how much people are not paying attention. If undecideds aren't paying enough attention to know the details but understand that the case is less serious, then they aren't getting any of the details of the case (the kind of thing Trump wanted to suppress in the first place) and a conviction won't matter and Trump wins. If people aren't paying attention and have no idea the seriousness of the case, I guess that benefits Biden because all they'll know is that Trump was convicted of a felony. So I guess if you're Biden, you have to hope that people are either paying a ton of attention or no attention at all.
- Trump looks whiny and tired and repetitive. I don't know how widespread the stories of him falling asleep (or worse) are, but that certainly doesn't help with Trump's image of being smart or strong or virile.
- It's obvious that this makes Trump miserable. And on a personal note, I just love that.
Well, he's taking lots of naps in court. I worry that'll refresh him too much.
Pennsylvania leaned heavily democratic in a special election yesterday and during the primary. Trump only got something like 60% of the vote there from Republicans. I'm not sure we can really pull anything from either of those stats, but I'm guessing the primary factor is that the shifting electorate makes likely voters much more likely to vote Democrat now. College educated whites have always been reliable voters, and now they're reliably voting democratic.
I'm not sure what to make of the Republican primary stuff. If you just look at the Republican primary numbers in a vacuum, there's a ton of protest votes against Trump. But I'm guessing those voters were either a) already baked into the Biden number or b) will come home to Trump at the end of the day. Hoping I'm wrong, though.
Pennsylvania is the one swing state that Biden has been doing the best in (although he recently was leading a Michigan poll as well). If the polls are right, Biden might need to hold the Rust Belt to win.
*************
538 did a good podcast the other day talking about some trends that appear good for Biden but may not matter:
1. The trials. The thought is that it won't do much to sway sentiment, especially this hush money case, unless something comes out that really blows people away. Even the idea that Trump isn't able to campaign right now may not matter six months from now. Polling shows a big swing to Biden if Trump is convicted of a "serious" crime but it's hard to tell whether voters find this case serious at all.
2. Abortion. Even though abortion is a terrible issue or Republicans, they seemed to think it might not have a big impact on the presidential election. People that are going to care the most about this issue are people who were going to vote anyway, and the rest of the people that care are probably voting anyway because it's a presidential election. Plus, people can be angry about Trump's stance on abortion, vote to protect abortion rights, and then still vote for Trump. They even downplayed Trump's recent shift towards a more pro-choice posture and said extreme anti-abortion people are still almost certainly going to vote for Trump even if he's against bans.
3. Campaign money. Biden is outpacing Trump on funds earned, funds spent (on the campaign at least), and campaign infrastructure in battleground states. But they argued that 1) these candidates are already really well known and money might not sway that many people 2) Trump gets a ton of free media coverage. I do think if Biden can significantly outspend Trump on advertising in battleground states, it can have an impact. Trump is obviously going to use money to pay his own bills first, and Biden won't have that issue. And Biden has way more feet on the ground to go out and convince people. They basically said it was the same thing in 2016 - Trump had a much worse campaign effort than Hillary and she outspent him 2-1, but Trump got so much free media coverage that it didn't matter in the end.
I guess we'll see.
I mean, Nikki getting 30% in PA despite bowing out months ago cannot be a "great" thing for Trump. That said, I saw some of the mail in results, and they were incredibly bad for Don, so one could assume that many people voted Haley, by mail, some time ago. I dunno.
As for those podcast points....
1. "Even the idea that Trump isn't able to campaign right now may not matter six months from now." I've said it before, being stuck in court for six weeks is crippling for a campaign. The loss of time is massive. If the US Supreme Court does not scuttle the DC trial, Trump will be sidelined up to THREE MONTHS during the summer, which will be a huge disaster for his campaign. Nikki Haley has to be cackling about this.
2. "People that are going to care the most about this issue are people who were going to vote anyway, and the rest of the people that care are probably voting anyway because it's a presidential election." This is entirely the POINT of how you win elections. You get the people most likely on your side, to physically DO IT. This is not something to brush aside. Enthusiasm is a major factor, and when the vote is very close, that is tantamount.
3. And Biden has way more feet on the ground to go out and convince people. They basically said it was the same thing in 2016 - Trump had a much worse campaign effort than Hillary and she outspent him 2-1, but Trump got so much free media coverage that it didn't matter in the end. First off, Hillary lost because she overspent in states she probably wasn't going to win, and ignored ones she was struggling in. Biden is expanding the campaign, on certain issues, but that will help down ticket Dems anyway. Having people working the campaign is really important. Take Florida, which Trump will likely win, but Biden is spending there. Trump's issue is that Desantis hates him, so he won't get much help from him, forcing his team to spend more than they normally would. Biden is basically trolling Trump down there.
I mean, Nikki getting 30% in PA despite bowing out months ago cannot be a "great" thing for Trump. That said, I saw some of the mail in results, and they were incredibly bad for Don, so one could assume that many people voted Haley, by mail, some time ago. I dunno.
Apparently, vote by mail info goes out 50 days before the election. Haley dropped out exactly 50 days before. So she would've been on the ballot (obviously), but she would've dropped out before people would've received their vote by mail. Maybe some could've immediately filled it out before they found out, but I assume a lot of people knew.
As for those podcast points....
1. "Even the idea that Trump isn't able to campaign right now may not matter six months from now." I've said it before, being stuck in court for six weeks is crippling for a campaign. The loss of time is massive. If the US Supreme Court does not scuttle the DC trial, Trump will be sidelined up to THREE MONTHS during the summer, which will be a huge disaster for his campaign. Nikki Haley has to be cackling about this.
Really hoping SCOTUS doesn't drag their feet with their decision. We should have the DC trial this summer.
2. "People that are going to care the most about this issue are people who were going to vote anyway, and the rest of the people that care are probably voting anyway because it's a presidential election." This is entirely the POINT of how you win elections. You get the people most likely on your side, to physically DO IT. This is not something to brush aside. Enthusiasm is a major factor, and when the vote is very close, that is tantamount.
I was thinking about it the other day, and I have a decent amount of enthusiasm to vote for Biden. He's done a good job, and he's the man standing between us and Trump. I assume that will rise as times goes on. I assume I'm not alone in that and people will get more excited to vote for Biden once they realize they have no other choice.
MAGA voters have nowhere to go but down in their enthusiasm. It's maxed out.
3. And Biden has way more feet on the ground to go out and convince people. They basically said it was the same thing in 2016 - Trump had a much worse campaign effort than Hillary and she outspent him 2-1, but Trump got so much free media coverage that it didn't matter in the end. First off, Hillary lost because she overspent in states she probably wasn't going to win, and ignored ones she was struggling in. Biden is expanding the campaign, on certain issues, but that will help down ticket Dems anyway. Having people working the campaign is really important. Take Florida, which Trump will likely win, but Biden is spending there. Trump's issue is that Desantis hates him, so he won't get much help from him, forcing his team to spend more than they normally would. Biden is basically trolling Trump down there.
I hope Trump is serious and spends money in New York and California and places like that. He's way behind in money so any money he spends outside of battleground states is a waste.
It sounds like the Biden campaign is doing things right. He can't only spend money in AZ, NV, GA, MI, WI, and PA, but I'd like to see that be the focus. Travel there, speak there. Send Obama and other popular surrogates. I think NC is a possibility. FL seems like a lost cause, but I can see making Trump waste money there (same in Texas...really hoping we can get Allred to beat Cruz). They might be able to make a run at OH, but that also seems out of reach.
Biden also has to defend some light blue states like New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Virginia. But the rest of the map seems pretty secure. Focus on where they need to focus, and again they only need to win half the tossup states (assuming it's the right half)
People are wondering why Trump can't command crowds to New York City.
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/24/keeps- … ing-up-to/
Immunity is being argued in front of SCOTUS today. In past *huge* cases, SCOTUS has decided really quickly (Pentagon Papers, Watergate Tapes, Bush v Gore).
I assume they'll wait until the last possible minute. Either July or after. And that will be a decision, not a requirement.
Update: there's almost no way they decide on this before the election. Sounds like it's more likely they kick the whole thing back to the Appeals Court and then start the whole process over.
DC and Florida cases are going to be delayed until after the election. Biden needs to win in November.
Ruminations on the potential outcomes:
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/25/trump- … n-6-trial/
A conversation with my father:
DAD: "How do you think the election will go?"
IB: "It'll probably be fine."
DAD: "Son! That's what you said about Season 4 of SLIDERS!"
IB: "Oh God."
DAD: "What is SLIDERS anyway? You told me to say that to you every time you say that something will probably be fine."
IB: "Don't ask."
On the public health front:
I am mostly wearing masks in indoor public spaces these days (like grocery stores). Outdoor masking seems unnecessary. I am mostly buying my masks from a Korean website called Gmarket which sells Korean products: https://global.gmarket.co.kr/Home/Main
They sell sporting goods, electronics, personal grooming products, etc., but for me, the main interest is masks because Korean-made consumer-grade masks tend to have affordable price points, feature earloops over headbands, and the Korean government has strict standards to acquire a KF94 certification before export. Most KF94 masks filter 98 percent or more and exceed the 94 percent standard.
In contrast, the KN95 label can be applied to any product without oversight; I could sell Kleenex with some string as a KN95 mask.
The site is a bit convoluted. Not every product has an English language listing. Sometimes, the same mask will be sold as one mask in one packet but also 25 masks in one package or 100 masks split across four packages of 25-masks each. After doing a search for, say, "KF94 masks 100 pcs", you then have to select "International shipping" to filter out masks that will only ship within Korea (unless you live in Korea). I've bookmarked the search terms and filters for myself:
http://gsearch.gmarket.co.kr/Listview/S … =undefined
The listed price of a mask isn't actually helpful because you only get the exported-from-Korea shipping costs after you log in with your account (and its location setting) and add the product to your cart. At that point, you'll see the product price and the shipping price. Also, you have to log into the site every time; the cookies on that site expire fast and don't retain an active login.
However, despite all that, the site insists on PayPal (which creates some security distance for your payment method from the site itself) and a recent order of 200 KF94 masks and shipping and import fees amounted to about $62 USD or 31 cents a mask. And pleasingly, after placing the order, the masks showed up at my door eight business days later.
A few years ago, I was pretty active on Twitter and followed election coverage pretty closely. I even waded into waters where I tried to calmly convince MAGA of the error of their ways. Eventually, I didn't like the person I was. I was doom-scrolling through twitter all the time, and I was feeling myself growing more and more annoyed.
So I quit. I was doing it because I was bored, and there are a billion apps that I could use to stop myself from being bored.
About a year ago, I got curious about some things and waded back into those waters. I had deleted the app but I could still access the website through Safari on my phone. There were a couple of people I liked to follow for news on the Trump indictments or whatever and that was that. Eventually, Elon closed that loophole and made you register to access the website. So I was closed off. Then, more recently, I decided I was curious enough and I created a second account (I didn't remember the login and thought this was more reasonable) and accessed the website (again, not downloading the app) to get my news. I went from checking it only in the evenings to checking it all the time. And, again, I could feel my blood pressure going up every time I visited.
The Trump immunity Supreme Court was the last straw. I was upset all day. So I decided to quit again. I logged out of my dummy account and deleted all my shortcuts. I haven't been back since.
Me doomscrolling through twitter isn't going to stop Trump from getting elected or make him go to jail, and at least now, I'm not forcing myself to constantly think about it. The unfortunate thing for everyone else is that now I'll be much less informed. The fortunate thing for me is that I'll be much happier.
I don't have time to compose an essay from anti-Trump lawyer George Conway III's exploration, but his view is that the Supreme Court has good and valid reason to really explore the concept of total presidential immunity for future cases, and that the hysteria reflects a lack of understanding with how the Supreme Court needs to establish some position on what is and isn't an official presidential act.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go1fEFH_Eok
Conway does emphasize that he could absolutely be wrong, but his view is that the Supreme Court is asking a lot of questions of Trump's lawyers and treating them with some credulity to explore the ramifications of how to designate whether or not a president's actions are serving the country or themselves.
Well, one thing I go back to is that most of the conservative majority in SCOTUS is fairly reasonable and has sided with reason most of the time. Alito seems like an absolute right-wing nutjob, and Thomas is completely compromised when it comes to Trump. But Kavanaugh has ended up being somewhat moderate, and I think Barrett hasn't been the complete nightmare she appeared to be.
I think sometimes there's this thought that SCOTUS is full of Trump sycophants, and there's two reasons not to think that. One, I think Roberts (despite everything) is trying to make the court not completely insane. If Thomas or Alito was the chief justice, I think this gets so much worse. Second, there's not really a quid pro quo here. There's no real reason or incentive for them to be loyal to Trump - unlike people in Congress, there's not anything Trump can give them that they don't already have.
(Note - I'm not saying SCOTUS hasn't been horrible. Obviously, they've made some world-changing decisions for the worse. I'm just saying a) they could be worse and b) the two oldest justices are also the two worst judges. If Biden wins, there's not a zero chance that this flips back to 5-4 liberals in the next four years).
It's probably best long term for SCOTUS to clarify this as much as possible considering the idea that the next Trump could be much better at crime than Trump is. But...man, I wish they'd carve out this DC case and let it move forward and let the documents case determine the high-level questions since I assume Cannon will never let that case be a thing anyway. SCOTUS will never delay this case more than she will.
1. I don't see what the Supreme Court is doing? There was a case decades ago in which it was found in Nixon vs. Fitzgerald that the President cannot be sued for official acts, but could be prosecuted.
2. I vaguely watch the polls, they are repetitive and boring.
3. Mask wearing is down to about as limited as pre-pandemic, from my personal observations. The majority of mask wearers these days seem to be the obnoxious, terrorist sympathizing, anarchists screaming "genocide" re: Palestine.
MODERATOR NOTE: This poster has declared that mask wearers are "terrorist sympathizing". It's one thing to call mask wearers obnoxious and anarchic. But this poster has declared that people who wear a mask for health and safety are supporting acts of mass murder against civilian populations.
This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
This poster will either apologize for this remark in his next post, or he will be banned for a week upon his next post.
1. I don't see what the Supreme Court is doing? There was a case decades ago in which it was found in Nixon vs. Fitzgerald that the President cannot be sued for official acts, but could be prosecuted.
This court has no respect for precedent.
Mask wearing is down to about as limited as pre-pandemic, from my personal observations. The majority of mask wearers these days seem to be the obnoxious, terrorist sympathizing, anarchists screaming "genocide" re: Palestine.
This remark is unacceptable. Mask wearing has no correlation to terrorism and terrorist sympathies. "Obnoxious" and "anarchist" is opinion and anyone can call me that falsely or accurately.
But calling a mask wearer a terrorist sympathizer is a nonsensical conclusion and a deceitful attack.
You have been warned repeatedly about false statements regarding masks. You were very clearly informed that if you continued to make false statements regarding masks, you would be banned for a week. You were further told that if you made another false statement, you would be banned for a month. The third instance would result in a permanent ban.
Grizzlor, you will apologize for your false accusation in your next post in this forum or you will be banned for a week upon your next post in this forum.
**
(Wow, that was dramatic.)
On a more informal note: I could fairly be called obnoxious, and I obviously have some anarchic tendencies (and no one who enjoyed Alan Moore's V FOR VENDETTA can claim they don't). But calling me a terrorist? For sharing a shopping experience that I described as convoluted but cheap?
Who does that?
When I first discovered the excellence of Korean masks, they were an entire four-sided rack at the Korean grocery store. But last year, masks only took up two sides of the rack. And in the past month, the rack is gone; I now have to go into the back warehouse area where they sell expired, marked-down items. Now I'm buying masks almost directly from the manufacturers.
I will note: the ability to acquire high quality masks at sensible is incredibly convoluted. If you try to buy them at local hardware stores, the markup is absurd, often at $4 - 6 USD per mask whereas a manufacturer on GMarket will charge you anywhere from 32 - 60 cents a mask. No one should have to spend $40 - 120 USD a month on masks that cost maybe 10 - 20 cents to make.
Why mask? I wear masks before going into certain public places, because I do not believe certain tasks and activities are worth risking COVID or even colds by doing them unmasked. My last cold led to pneumonia. It was my first one in three years, but pneumonia was exhausting.
For a lavish dinner with my favourite actress or for her birthday party, I will accept the risk of being unmasked in a restaurant or in her house with her friends.
But it is not worth it for me to get sick due to being unmasked while paying for fuel inside the mini-mart at the gas station, or being unmasked at the grocery store, or being unmasked picking up a hamburger to go, or being unmasked retrieving an order from a print shop, or being unmasked to buy a cup of coffee to drink elsewhere.
These are my personal strategies and assessments for my personal health and safety. No one else needs to follow them. My masks filter both ways.
I dare you to call me a terrorist for that -- again -- and see what happens.
This court has no respect for precedent.
Well that's what's so silly about some of the stuff you heard from them. Talking about how this is a decision for the ages and all that.
No.
It's the decision for now. The conservatives have the majority now, but Alito is 74 and Thomas is 75. Neither will be around forever, and actuarily speaking, will be the next to go. If a Democratic president replaces both of them, it's back to being a liberal majority. Roberts is 69. They act like they're doing historical business, but all of it could be unwritten in a decade or two. This is a group of people who think they're more important than they are, and I assume the next liberal court (whenever that is) will spend a lot of their time undoing what they did.
3. Mask wearing is down to about as limited as pre-pandemic, from my personal observations. The majority of mask wearers I SEE these days ON TELEVISION or IN PERSON seem to be the obnoxious, terrorist sympathizing, anarchists screaming "genocide" re: Palestine.
MODERATOR NOTE: This poster has declared that mask wearers are "terrorist sympathizing". It's one thing to call mask wearers obnoxious and anarchic. But this poster has declared that people who wear a mask for health and safety are supporting acts of mass murder against civilian populations.
This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
This poster will either apologize for this remark in his next post, or he will be banned for a week upon his next post.
Where did I call you a terrorist? Yup, the majority of the "mask wearers" that [I'M SORRY], I MYSELF PERSONALLY SEE WITH MY OWN EYES, are the obnoxious, I will add, professional and amateur protestors that Americans are forced to indulge lately. I literally prefaced the whole statement being my personal observation, but after re-reading I suppose if one opted to ignore that, well then I guess sky's the limit as to what could be inferred. I should have been absolutely literal myself then, leaving no room for the incorrect interpretation, free of any nuance, by adding "IN PERSON or ON TELEVISION." I "fixed" that above.
The great irony is now that the symbol of the face mask has become those who don't wear them for health reasons at all. Which would entirely rule people such as YOU out of my social commentary. I'm surprised you're not offended at how the pro-terrorist flunkies have subverted "public mask wearing" for those who are extremely health conscious and instead, made it a tool used for disguising the face of anarchists and anti-Semites. Now, rather than respond and ask me to clarify, or something a civilized person would do, we get the moderator notes followed by another trip to the principal's office.
Excuse me if I am a little perturbed that the radical left, which virtue signaled their adherence to their conformity by wearing masks everywhere and all the time, and then tried to publicly guilt or vilify anyone who chose not to, as if they were somehow inflicting violence over them. Again, not YOU or anyone here, who had their own personal/medical reasons to do so. No, these same "conformists," who's doctrine now ignores unprovoked violence on innocent civilians living in a democratic society, in order to score perverse, reverse racist "points" among themselves, by shouting colonialism and genocide. Because after all, the fair skinned are the root of all evil on the planet, and to be blamed for whatever may occur. They are incredibly warped, indoctrinated by professional idiots who teach at these institutions charging obscene money, not to mention social media platforms which are heavily influenced and programmed by hostile foreign entities.
The same so-called progressive pols who cowardly stood by and allowed BLM protests to turn into riots, allowed city centers to be overtaken by professional anarchists and drug addicts, and to turn a blind eye to criminals causing billions in theft and damage; they're the buffoons who nearly cost Joe Biden the 2020 election. Had they allowed a repeat on college campuses recently, you could kiss whatever chances he had bye-bye this time. Thank God city and state politicians stepped in, and had the police toss these idiots out of there. The President said yesterday "they cannot be allowed to cause chaos." Joe Biden's gravest threat is losing the middle of the country, not the left. Those who are willing to blow up his work on climate change, women's health, student debt, and infrastructure by supporting 3rd parties or even Trump, just so that they can conform with their lunatic comrades, be my guest. Society is losing its grip on reality. The younger generations have absolutely no concept of what an economy is, how it works, and why the traditional American way of life, as well as foreign policy, should be understood and supported.
I do hope that clears things up, because I have had an absolutely awful week personally, and the tribulations of a message board visited by dozens is not going register a blip on my radar full of grief, stress, uncertainty, and ambivalence. Didn't wish to shove any of that on anyone here.
..........................................................................................................................................................................
By the way, my past "false" statements, the ones that you jumped down my throat for, and tried to gag me over, were actually supported by major public health policy makers, including those in the United Kingdom. They questioned the efficacy of large scale mask-wearing, and the affect of mask mandates on the spread of the virus, making my skepticism in line with the leadership of the supposedly highly respected British National Health Service. Fine. I really didn't care to discuss the subject further at the time, since it personally does nothing for me, and the pandemic was ending. The science was not conclusive, I provided actual scientists questioning studies, and was crapped on. Throwing a gag order on dissent and skepticism is entirely illiberal.
I am very sorry that you had a terrible week.
I'm going to focus exclusively on the content regarding masks.
The majority of mask wearers I SEE these days ON TELEVISION or IN PERSON seem to be the obnoxious, terrorist sympathizing, anarchists screaming "genocide" re: Palestine." The great irony is now that the symbol of the face mask has become those who don't wear them for health reasons at all. Which would entirely rule people such as YOU out of my social commentary.
I guess that revision to personal perception changed it from an attack on me to a broad summary of anecdotes about personal experience with maskers who aren't me.
I wear a mask for my own health and safety. And my safety measures include buying masks that do not require others around me to mask. No mask enthusiast needs to take issue with someone not wearing a mask.
Yesterday, I had to leave my car at a mechanic and took the bus and train home, wearing a mask to avoid another pneumonia-inducing cold. The overall public perception of mask wearers outside of this forum is not my problem. Being called "terrorist sympathizing" for my masked transit ride home on this forum is my problem.
I guess 'didn't mean you!' is sufficiently apologetic.
Personally, I would have been satisfied with, "I apologize for calling mask-wearers like you terrorist sympathizers. That was a typo. I meant to say you're a twitchy hypochondriac. I also called you obnoxious and anarchic. I stand by that, and I also find you annoying and aggravating."
You previously said masks didn't work and pointed to various studies. But your claim was false because every mask study you cited used:
Non-sealing surgical masks or non-electrostatic cloth masks as opposed to the KF94, N95 and ASTM Level 3 cup-style, bifold or trifold masks worn by actual mask enthusiasts
Test subjects who admitted that they often forgot to wear their masks at all
The only thing the studies proved is that weakly-protective masks are weak in their protection and that people have trouble wearing them consistently, and that mask mandates aren't very helpful if too many masks lack filter and seal..
They proved nothing about the actual efficacy of electrostatic masking with correctly sealing, high filtering KF94, N95, and ASTM Level 3 cup, bifold or trifold masks.
Since you discounted and dismissed that, I don't believe you actually fully read or understood those studies. I think you either skimmed them or only read clickbait articles that inaccurately summarized those studies by 'journalists' who didn't understand what masks those studies used or how poorly the test subjects adhered to the testing stipulations.
I have seen you use clickbait representations of reports over the actual reports before. I saw you do it in your reaction to the release of the Robert Hur report on Joe Biden, where you read clickbait sensationalism about it, and then declared, "It's over. Biden has to step aside. The special counsel describes him as effectively an old geezer who soon will forget his own name. I do not know what other RED flag is needed at this point???" https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 398#p15398
Later, you confessed, "Of course I didn't read the report!" which revealed you were reacting to clickbait instead of actual information, and taking the clickbait as fact. https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 436#p15436 The actual examples of Joe Biden's supposedly poor memory in Hur's report showed that Biden's memory was as 'poor' as everyone else interviewed, yet Hur seized upon Biden's memory alone. The actual transcripts revealed that Biden's memory ranged from average to above average but was never poor or non-existent.
Your comments on the supposed failure of masks and Joe Biden's memory strike me as very similar to your previous fixation on Dr. Anthony's Fauci's "gain of function" research (which was a fiction).
To me, your claim that masks don't work based on those studies looks to me like you reading clickbait articles written by 'journalists' who were misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting the scientific studies or reports they were using as sources.
"Scientific Studies Prove Masks Don't Work" was more attention seeking than, "Scientific Studies Prove Weak Masks Offer Weak Protection. Scientific Studies Also Reveal That It Is Really Hard To Get People To Consistently Wear Masks To Study Mask Wearing."
No mask study will change the very simple fact that electrostatic filtration is highly effective at capturing particles and droplets. If you live in a home or ride a bus or a train with heat and air conditioning, you are relying on air filters and the study of electrostatics.
An air filter is the culmination of many fields of scientific study across centuries, encompassing electrostatics, particle physics, atomic physics (atomic as in atom-sized, not explosive), particles, antiparticles, electrons, positrons, all employed in commonplace air systems and electrostatic masks.
A study that used poor masks and non-compliant test subjects is not going to disprove the Standard Model of particle physics and the existence of static electricity.
I suppose I should say something about the mask enthusiast community.
I would say that a lot of the posts I see in mask forums give the impression that many who wear masks have an untreated or poorly managed anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, paranoid personality disorder, dependent personality disorder, are on the autism spectrum, and either have a social phobia or generalized social anxiety.
I've seen a lot of mask enthusiasts post unhappy accounts of how they were picking up a takeout order and saying, "Everyone was staring at me" and "The customer service worker gave me this ugly look and rolled her eyes at me" and "No one wanted to make small talk with me because I was wearing a mask" and "I've been cut off from my social circle because I wear a mask and they don't" or "My roommates all refused to wear masks outside their bedrooms, I can't believe they would do this to me."
To me, that isn't mask enthusiasm as much as a serious mental illness -- paranoia, anxiety, projection -- and also social ineptitude. These mentally ill people with social difficulties are masking their illness and handicaps with masks (haha).
They have seized upon their mask-wearing as making them a target when the reality is: most customer service reps want to move through transactions quickly; the small-talk deprived person was probably not very sociable or willing to take initiative and project openness to interaction; unless a home is a health care facility, residents shouldn't be required to mask; and the people telling these stories clearly have poor social skills but are blaming anti-mask sentiment.
There is also a subset of mask enthusiasts who look down upon others for not wearing masks, somehow ignoring that the KF94, N95 and ASTM L3 masks worn by the serious masker seal and filter very effectively. Other people masking would not give the masker any additional protection. To me, this is not mask enthusiasm but narcissism, the desire to see others as subhuman while elevating the narcissist, and masking is both pedestal and a mask for the narcissistic personality disorder.
None of that is my problem. I just use those communities to look for places to buy the masks I want, and I mask because I don't want to get colds, flu, COVID or pneumonia, and going unmasked on the bus and train home is not worth getting sick for me.
As for all the other comments regarding anarchists, anti-Semites, radical-left, conformists, so-called progressive pols, Black Lives Matter, buffoons and college campuses... none of that seems to have anything to do with masks, so I'll just leave that alone.
Anyway. Sorry again about your no-good, terrible, horrible, very bad week.
To better days.
I've noticed that people have some unfortunately non-factual ideas about mask studies, electrostatic filtration and viral transmission.
This study, Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review, has been cited by many to declare that masks don't work. They claim that this report declares that transmission was not lower among mask wearers than non-mask wearers, or in areas with mask mandates vs no mask mandate. That is a baffling claim given that the report starts with:
Despite the risk of bias, and allowing for uncertain and variable efficacy, we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission in these study populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10446908/
The risk of bias is that much of the data comes from mask-wearers who were self-reporting their mask wearing habits, perhaps inaccurately, and that mask wearing was combined with other interventions like social distancing.
The other highly cited report is the Cochrane Report, Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses, where unscrupulous clickbait producers cited it to claim masks don't work. But the report's key points are:
There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks.
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/do … .pub6/full
To put it simply: the results were hit and miss, but due to "relatively low adherence with the interventions" -- which is referring to how the majority of people in these studies were not wearing masks consistently or at all -- the lack of reduction in illnesses could easily be people not wearing masks as opposed to masks not working.
Most mask enthusiasts wear KF94, KN95, N95 or ASTM masks. KF94 masks can be tent-shaped (bifolds) or boat-shaped (trifolds); KN95s are generally bifolds but some trifolds exist; ASTM masks can be flat surgical masks (which the mask enthusiast eschews) or bifolds and trifolds (a shape which tends to seal better to the face than a surgical mask).
These masks operate via electrostatic filtration: the filter layer of these masks are electrically charged. As Quinn Mallory would explain to you: electrical charge is a fundamental property of all matter, which contains protons (positively charged) and electrons (negatively charged) and the neutron (neutral). A drop of water positively charged hydrogen atoms and negatively charged oxygen atoms.
However, when water encounters a positive charged object like electrostatic cloth, the electrons in the oxygen are drawn to the positive charge (as opposite charges attract) while the protons in the hydrogen are repelled by the positive charge. However, the electrons, moving closer to the positive charge, develop a stronger attraction. Meanwhile, the protons, being pushed away from the positive charge, develop a weaker repulsion. The result is that the positively charged cloth attracts the particles.
Try rubbing a plastic fork on a plastic bag, and dripping an eyedropper of water drops past the fork, and you'll see the water drops are drawn to the fork. An electrostatic filter in a KF94, KN95, N95 or ASTM mask is a layer of meltblown polypropylene that is electrostatically charged. It draws and catches water droplets within its electrostatic fibers.
The Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review and the Cochrane Report had inconclusive findings, but ultimately, their studies were exercises in measuring how people wore masks inconsistently, reported incorrectly, and they couldn't offer any statistical analysis to come to a conclusion.
But statistical analysis, whether it concludes or not, is ultimately a study of human behaviour. It does not disprove basic particle physics. Water contains positively charged hydrogen and negatively charged oxygen. Electrostatic filters are positively charged and attract the negative charge of oxygen in water, catching water droplets whether visible to the naked eye or respiratory droplets or aerosol particles. In air conditioning, these filters catch dust and bacteria and viruses. In an electrostatic mask, these filters prevent viral particles in respiratory droplets and aerosol particles from being inhaled.
Mask studies on mask wearing are ultimately a study of sociology, and while enlightening in human behaviour, it really has no bearing on particle physics.
The mask skeptic often declares that cold and COVID and flu viruses are 0.1 microns and electrostatic masks are only rated on filtering particles that at 0.3 microns (94 percent for KF94, 95 for KN95, N95 and ASTM). They claim that viruses are too small to be stopped by electrostatic filtering. However, this forgets: viruses on their own have no mechanism of propulsion. Viruses don't float through the air independently; they travel by being attached to aerosol particles and respiratory droplets in expelled and evaporated air. They travel in water and water vapour suspended in air.
A 0.1 micron particle does not have the size to contain sufficient viral material to infect a human being. A 0.3 micron particle does not have the size to contain sufficient viral material to infect a human being. The average virus-carrying respiratory droplet is 9.3 microns. An aerosol droplet would need to be at least 5 microns large to have enough virus to infect a human.
Furthermore, the 0.3 micron measurement for electrostatic masks isn't actually to indicate that sub-0.3 particles pass through the filter. 0.3 micron particles are where the filter is expected to be weakest, 'only' filtering 94 - 95 percent, but particles smaller than 0.3 tend to have such an erratic movement that they collide with electrostatic fibers at an even higher rate than larger particles.
Also, while KF94 masks are required to filter at 94 percent by the Korean government before they can be sold, most filter 0.3 micron particles at 97 - 98 percent. KN95 tends to be all over the place, sometimes as low as 40 and sometimes above 95 percent. N95 tends to be in the 99.9 percent range.
I hope this has dispelled some myths, falsehoods and misunderstandings until the next time they are inevitably reiterated, but at least typing it out here means I can copy-paste from it later.
The polls for Democrats are bad... but in actual elections, Democrats outperform.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democra … =101850305
I have no idea who is going to be the next president, and I'm still pretty worried about it.
Yeah I don't really know what to make of the polls. I listen to a lot of the 538 politics podcast. They obviously depend on the polls for their accuracy, but they acknowledge that something about Trump makes the polls less accurate. In elections where Trump isn't on the ballot, the polls have been really accurate and reliable. When he's on the ballot, something is awry.
In both 2016 and 2020, the polls underestimated Trump. The only real theories I saw were the ideas that:
- Trump voters were undersampled. In 2016 this could've been the result of shifting demographics. Since people that traditionally voted Democrat were voting Republican and vice versa, maybe their sampling techniques underrepresented Trump voters.
- "Shy Trump voters" - people that were always going to vote for Trump but were unwilling, due to the social pressures to not admit you're going to vote for Trump.
So if the polls underestimated Trump in 2016 and 2020, why would they suddenly be overestimating him? Could really be the same reasons, just in reverse.
- Pollsters oversampling from Trump voters. Maybe in an attempt to fix the sampling problems they had in the past, they overcompensated and started oversampling Trump voters.
- "Shy Biden voters" - maybe people see polls that say Biden is unpopular or his approval rating being in the 30s and think "I can't admit that I like Biden." I guess it's possible. I think there's a difference in stigma in admitting you like Trump vs admitting you like Biden. I guess there's also the idea that a lot of 2020 Biden voters are saying they won't vote for him or will even vote for Trump, but they could all come back by November.
But when you look at actual results in these primaries, it's hard to see bad news for Biden. Huge percentages of Republicans are voting for people other than Trump. Even people voting after Nikki Haley dropped out. Even in closed primaries where you have to be a Republican to vote?
Are these eventual Trump voters that are casting some kind of protest vote? Maybe? But if so...why? What do they hope Trump will do? People protest voted Biden in Michigan in hopes that he'd change his stance on Palestine. I don't know what protest votes against Trump would even hope to accomplish.
Or are these Biden voters who are voting against Trump to make him look bad? Either, in open primaries, Democrats actually crossing party lines or, in closed primaries, voting for the Trump alternative? That seems to be what Trump wants people to think. But if that's not the answer and these are eventual voters for RFK, Biden, or another alternative (empty top of the ballot), I don't know how Trump has the votes to win. Especially if Biden can win back some of the 2020 voters he lost.
The trends have been good for Biden in the last couple of months (although that trend is reversing a bit recently). But I'm not comfortable simply thinking that the polls are wrong. I would like the polls to be underestimating Biden *and* for Biden to be winning polls.
Cannon essentially killed the documents case (or at least put it in a coma). It was incredibly genius for Trump to install such a friendly and loyal judge in this district, and I wish the Democrats had been a bit more aware and tried to stop her appointment. I know they wouldn't have had the votes along party lines, but by all accounts, they simply ignored her during hearings. That was obviously a mistake - Cannon is incapable of ruling fairly, and I assume a number of other judges would've already brought this case to trial.
Just have to hope that the DC trial can start. The good news is that Florida can't block that anymore. So if the Supreme Court doesn't mess up the immunity ruling, DC should have an open schedule.
Now, rather than respond and ask me to clarify, or something a civilized person would do, we get the moderator notes followed by another trip to the principal's office.
I hear you. I agree with you. You're right. I should have responded and asked you to clarify and done what a civilized person would do.
I'm sorry. The next time you say something that offends me, I will ask you to clarify instead of what I did before.
**
I'm freaked out by everything: the Supreme Court case (despite George Conway's reassurances), by Judge Cannon (although that was less on Democrats and more on Merrick Garland's slowness and timidity), by the polls (despite Democrats overperforming).
I find myself thinking about what Sherlock told me.
I would tell you to stop being irrational and emotional. You're letting your fear and anxiety cloud your mind and prevent you from seeing the reality: that you have no control over these events, and your feelings have no impact on the situation.
You're wasting too much time time and energy obsessing over something that doesn't benefit you and doesn't benefit from your attention.
You need to find a case.
A case that is interesting and complex. A case that requires your skills and expertise. A case that challenges you and tests you. A case that is worthy of your attention and time. A case that is fun and exciting. A case that makes you match your wits and logic against adversaries and the unknown. A case that only you can solve. A case that demands for you to play the Game.
Outside of your obligation to vote, politics are a joke. They're a farce. They're a waste of time. They're nothing.
The Game is something. It’s a challenge. It’s a thrill.
You need a case. You need the Game. The Game is everything. The Game is the only thing that matters. The Game is life. And I am the master of the Game. The Game is what makes me alive. The Game is what makes me Sherlock Holmes.
And the Game.
Is on.
Not to mingle threads, but in situations like these, I find myself reading the Marvel comic, POWERLESS, set in a universe where none of the superhero characters have any powers. Matt Murdock is a recovering addict, a lawyer who is completely outmatched by crime boss Wilson Fisk. Peter Parker is a survivor of radiation poisoning and his terrified of corrupt industrialist Norman Osborn.
There are no superheroes in this world, just ordinary people, and the entire comic is a solemn reflection on how we often take joy in escaping to a world where good triumphs over evil, and no one ever really dies (except Karen Page and Uncle Ben) -- but in real life, sometimes we're the hero, sometimes we're the villain, sometimes we can save the day, and sometimes, we are powerless.
I guess this was a long-winded way of saying that I'm limiting myself to a half-hour a day to read political news because the whole thing is so scary.
Anyway. My 'case' has been to throw myself into my dayjob and edit photos for nice ladies.
Sliders.tv → Sliders Bboard → American Politics: Discuss and Debate
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
