@SlowBoy's banner p

SlowBoy


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 April 01 14:25:53 UTC

				

User ID: 2303

SlowBoy


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 April 01 14:25:53 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2303

but the Republicans had just spend 2 and a half years looking into Obama's comments after the Benghazi attack. The fact that people who seemed passionate about that at the time couldn't even adequately explain to me what the scandal even was tells you all you need to know.

Americans working at the Libyan embassy died after it was invaded by a crazed mob. Turns out the Obama administration had advanced notice this was possible, but chose not to increase security. After the incident, to cover their asses, they framed the maker of an unrelated anti-Islam documentary for inciting the mob, and prosecuted him. Then, in the years that followed, they all insisted that nothing untoward had happened whatsoever, and it was all a case of "Republicans pounced". A microcosm of Obama's (Hillary's) Libya policy, which replaced a dictator with a broke country that has become a civil war, an open-air slave market, and a transit hub for migrants into Europe. "We came, we saw, he died." Now, ten years on, Democrats have successfully convinced themselves that nothing happened and talking about Benghazi is proof that the speaker is some Republican crank who probably tends toward conspirwcy theories.

This is a pretty weak justification for what turned out to be a total media fantasy and witchhunt.

he's never really gained much from debates, he's just treaded water.

This is a pretty bizarre standard, because generally debates don't matter much at all. Who remembers the 2008 or 2012 debates? As I recall Romney was generally considered to win a few debates against Obama, but it didn't really matter and nobody cared. Trump, by contrast, used the 2015 debates to win the primary, the 2nd debate with Hillary to revive his campaign after the Billy Bush tapes, and now his debate with Biden to force an unprecedented mid-election switch. Declaring that Trump is a bad debater is one of those stylistic preferences, where people who already don't like Trump conclude he isn't actually good at anything.

Trump has been subjected to intense public scrutiny. He speaks in public over and over and over again. We know what it would look like if he were senile: his handlers would hide him from the public and run a front-porch campaign, as they did with Biden, as they're essentially doing with Kamala.

The longer Kamala speaks uninterrupted, the more incoherent she appears. Thus, her teams wants the debate to be a continuous conversation: She interrupts Trump, he interrupts her, and she doesn't get bound up in 2 minute rambling answers. This is the opposite of Joe, who can no longer adapt quickly to a live conversation, so they wanted closed mics so he could recite rehearsed answers.

The twitter PR spin (that comes from Kamala's handlers, almost certainly not Kamala herself) is just spin. I think you have to be very credulous to believe that Trump is scared of debating Kamala Harris. Likewise, I don't imagine that Kamala's brain trust is a brilliant team of superplanners. They probably just figured this was an attack line that sounded good. I don't think it is.

What are you talking about? Trump speaks in public regularly and gives frequent interviews. These interviews are more critical than anything Kamala Harris or Joe Biden are subjected to. Trump was literally just shot in the head at a rally and had the presence of mind to stand up and pump his fist yelling, "Fight! Fight! Fight!" Before that, he debated Joe Biden in conditions that lead to Biden having to resign from the race. He was just at Arlington and gave several appearances in public there. What decline? Trump isn't hiding.

https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1829250723659559419

Kamala: "The climate crisis is real that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time."

Kamala Harris is probably the stupidest major parth candidate of the last 30 years. Hillary, for all her flaws, was cunning and smart. Once people internalize that Kamala isn't smart -- she wants to tax unrealized gains, she wants to end gasoline cars, she can't fix the border -- people will not accept Kamala as "less of a disaster".

In 2016, at this time, Trump was supposedly -10.

In 2020, at this time, Trump was supposedly -10.

Now, polls have Trump around -2 to +2. He looks great in swing states. The indictments consolidated support, the assassination attempt consolidated support, and RFK's endorsement represents a new base of support. Trump looks better than he's ever looked, his favorables are better than they've ever been, 4 years of Biden makes Trump's presidency look even better in hindsight -- and somehow, all I hear on the Motte is how Trump is definitely, for sure, this time, we mean it, decisively, finally, no joke, losing.

I don't detect the energy that Trump's campaign had in 2016 in 2024.

Trump is polling higher than he ever has before. A month ago he was shot in the head and dodged a bullet. Then he got on his feet and started a fight chant.

The people saying they don't feel 2016 energy are all people who, in 2016, were certain that he was going to lose and could never possibly win. This time 2016 the Republican party was abandoning him in droves, "grab them by the pussy" was coming out and convinced everyone that this campaign was finished, and Hillary was giving interviews about how far ahead she was. This feels some some new meme fatalist consensus: but the same doomsayers were doomsaying then too.

People aren't satisfied with Trump? After 4 years of Biden Trump looks better than ever before. People remember peace and a stronger economy and groceries that didn't triple in price. He didn't drain the swamp? Gee, yeah, I wonder what happened.

This is what I'm talking about: the fatalism here is people who don't like Trump and never liked Trump rationalizing increasingly desperate forms of depression. What on earth does this have to do with the Enlightenment? The average poster here is pretty smart, but I doubt 1 in 10 could give a coherent definition of that period of time without consulting Google. Desire for truth? Maybe in principle, but I see bullshit repeated here all the time.

Romney ran a bad campaign on what could have been a winnable election. Obama is still viewed fawningly by his supporters, but presided over a tremendous drop in elected Democratic officials nationwide. His presidency directly lead to the election of Trump. In exchange, liberals got... Obamacare?

Chain of custody was destroyed for tens or hundreds of thousands of ballots across swing states. Conveniently after counting stopped simultaneously across several swing states, and started finding massive returns for Biden. The evidencr you would use to prove that these votes were all legitimate doesn't exist, because it was destroyed.

McConnell consistently opposed MAGA and conservative desires. His people spent money against conservatives in the 2022 midterms so he could maintain power over the Republican Senate bloc. The man is currently opposing conservative priorities, for example, the SAFE act.

McConnell's treatment of justices was a great victory for cons and perhaps did more to elect Trump than any other Republican. He's also a snake and conservatives are right to dislike him. It's entirely emblematic of the know-nothing commentariat to declare that conservatives don't know anything, while not knowing anything yourself, then smugly declaring that we're nothing but a "blind cult".

I honestly don't think Musk Thiel Vance are especially intelligent and capable.

Musk and Thiel both invented some of the most important companies of the century. Just one of Musk's companies, SpaceX, now outperforms NASA and Boeing. Thiel is one of thr godfathers of Silicon Valley, one of the most competitive and important corporate battlegrounds in the world. They are probably two of the most capable men in the world.

Young men, a Trump-leaning demographic, are not switching to Kamala Harris. The suggestion is preposterous. It can only be made in the fatalistic Motte fantasy world where people continue to not know anything real about Donald Trump.

How much impact he had on each one of those outcomes is limited, but people like winners.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

I always thought Obama was a mediocre public speaker propped up by media hype and social consensus. My evidence for this is that now that he's out of office, nobody especially cares about the occasional speech he gives. Every few years the left falls in blind love with these wunderkids who all present the same front: Obama, Beto, Wendy Davis, Stacey Abrams, now Kamala. The men are skinny and roll their sleeves up, the women are spunky and loud. We go through this routine every few years, and the eventual result is always that, win or lose, this once-in-a-generation political superstar is revealed as another mediocrity who doesn't really know anything but runs great when the media is nice for them. I think subconsciously it's all aping after the JFK aesthetic.

RFK built the largest independent political campaign since Ross Perot. He has a big political organization made up of volunteers from the broad political middle of the country. He is, besides, like Trump, much smarter than consevatives.

I find it hard to believe that the average voter - or indeed almost any voter not already all in for Trump - who cares about the distinction between serving at a rank and retiring at that rank, especially when it's the Minnesota National Guard. Complete inside baseball.

He lied about serving in combat, or allowed his allies to lie on his behalf. You cannot systematically lie about your military service and then claim, when finally called out, that it doesn't really matter anyways. Then why lie?

Well he simply is not popular at the moment.

JD Vance propelled his unlikely political career on the basis of his memoirs, which were unusually popular and well-regarded. The man is very smart and a good public defender of Trump's ideas. I predict that these qualities will age well and any temporary unpopularity is the result of a concentrated media push.

Steve Scaline was the No. 2 House Republican, got shot with half a dozen other Republicans outside, and the media shrugged. Rand Paul got attacked by his neighbor not long after his presidential run, and he got laughed at by the media. Trump almost got his head blown off and the media is not even curioud about the investigation, after several news orgs have put a ban on the iconic photo of Trump pumping his fist. Meanwhile, I remember coverage of Giffords being so overwhelming that Sarah Palin was blamed for the shooting because she had a campaign ad that showed crosshairs.

I can't speak to Giffords' potential. I had never heard of her before the shooting. Maybe she was poised for great things. But there are hundreds of national politicians actively jockeying to become national names, and dozens at any moment who are close to actual power. I can't say with confidence that Giffords would have achieved special renown if not for the shooting. (I don't think it's meaningful that she got a Medal of Honor -- any sitting Congressman who gets shot and lives probably rightfully deserves one.)

I think it's an attempt to rationalize away the fact that Trump is an exceptionally bad candidate.

But I can name a dozen reasons I want to vote for Trump. And by this point the idea that Trump is a bad candidate is growing stale: he significantly outpolls the modal generic Republican.

Tim Walz left service before his unit deployed to war, carefully timed so the official orders hadn't come through so "he didn't know". Fine, it happens. Then across a long political career he is introduced as having served in war, or makes references to carrying weapons of war, in times of war. How did everybody get the idea that Tim Walz served in war? Who told that lie to every introductory speaker for 20 years?

It might not matter to legacy media but there are people out there who care and are offended. It only makes sense to characterize Walz as a charming scandal-free puppy in a partisan media frame that ignores all such problems.

I imagine Napoleon and Alexander felt the same way: so many victories, success unimaginable, unparalleled, and yet, and yet, and yet. So much unrealized. It's really always been this way.

I don't imagine even a Mega Trump who accomplishes more than anyone can imagine can solve all the problems we need to solve. I don't imagine these problems can even be solved in my lifetime. But I imagine that a lot of good can be done anyways.

The Motte is honestly the most fatalistic place I know. I'm not sure why this is. Maybe smart people read history and spend too much time contemplating the death of Western Civilization. The Republicans I know are in good spirits about the election. Trump is polling well, at or slightly above a tie, whene he was supposedly -10 this time 2020. He's been endorsed by Musk, Tulsi, and RFK, and is putting together a unity ticket of conservatives, moderates, and classical liberals. The assassination shocked a lot of powerful people into joining his team. RFK's people are organized and working with MAGA. Then I come here and it's all about how Kamala is too powerful, nothing Republicans can do is working, Trump is hated, Trump is doomed, etc. etc. etc. I really don't get it.

The hardline conservative quintile staffs and runs the Republican Party.

I know and have even dated Republic staffers. They are generally significantly more moderate than the base, and behind closed doors lament the voters in their own party. They are not "ultraconservstive hardliners": I don't know how you make sense of conservative politics of the last 20 years if you believe the party is sympatico with the base.

well, teenagers who only remember Trump and then Biden as president see a chance for Hope and Change in their generation.

Men 18-29 are now a Trump-leaning demographic.

On the other hand, he's so out of the great white north that it seems Republicans won't come up with decent attacks before we get to November.

Stolen valor?

Vance and McCormick are running against their own achievements and their own intelligence and their own qualifications, which says something absolutely tragic about the Republican base electorate.

The people attacking Vance for his accomplishments are Democrats. Tim Walz literally said that Vance couldn't be a true country boy because he went to Yale. This is "stop hitting yourself" misdirection.