only site’s

*cite’s

(… /s)

Every time there is funding on the table, the Republicans take the country hostage and create a crisis unless they get something completely unrelated, unjustified and partisan. I’m getting pretty tired of this skipping record.

The main goal of misinformation not to convince people of its truth, although that helps when it happens. It’s to create enough noise to drown out signal and make people disengage. That cognitive dissonance is exhausting, and the exhaustion in turn makes other misinformation and law/norm-breaking easier to proliferate.

The classic Republican platform: “Government doesn’t work. Elect us and we’ll prove it.”

I like the term I first read today, “sanewashing.”

Journalistic neutrality standards are good things when reporting on ambiguity, but you can’t give equal deference to both delusional and sane individuals.

I suspect between Russian influence operations and the billionaire sociopaths, Trump’s funding isn’t a factor at this point.

But I’m doomscrolling these comments trying to find any practical silver-lining, so I genuinely appreciate this attempt.

From her Wikipedia:

On August 8, 2024, she crossed the floor and joined the Republican Party.[5][6] Upon switching her party affiliation, Alvarado-Gil lost all her committee assignments, and was forced out of the Latino Caucus.[7] Alvarado-Gil is fiscally conservative and had previously voted with Republicans on labor legislation. However, she is also “pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ+ rights and anti-Trump”.[8]

She’s pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ+, and anti-Trump, but somehow decided that the GOP of August, 2024 - the opposite of all those things - better represents her?

Kay…

Considering Trump’s track record, it would be strange if he supported something actually likely to succeed.

Oh, let’s do more.

JD Vance’s solution to depression? “Maybe smile more”

JD Vance’s solution to cancer? “Maybe eat better”

JD Vance’s solution to poverty? “Maybe get another job”

JD Vance’s solution to homelessness? “Maybe move in with your parents”

I’m confident even this level of support is rife with foreign money being effectively donated to Trump to help him continue to damage American power.

But it will be really interesting if, in the lead-up to Trump being eligible to liquidate shares, the price rises instead of falls. The widespread expectation that he will dump those shares should put the stock in a freefall, so if it rises, that momentary windfall in the stock price is a good signal just how much money is being laundered to Trump.

God, I hate that we have to do this math to account for arbitrary electoral college nonsense at all, but you are doing a great job of making it as painless as possible.

I award you the below internet point!

.

(But seriously, good call!)

I agree on the history, so “founded on” was wrong on my part.

But arguably the current “one person, one vote” standard controls. The Equal Protection clauses of the 5th and the 14th amendments are incommensurably in conflict with the electoral college. As between them, since the Equal Protection clauses (at least the 14th Amendment) are more recent, those arguably supersede in case of conflict.

That’s my reasoning anyway.

Yes, I agree with all of that. But “there’s a bigger problem” or “Trump voters know who he is” isn’t the same as “the US got what it deserves.”

I’m specifically taking issue with “deserves.”. “Deserves” implies Trump represents the US, which would only be true if the majority of the US (or US voters) chose Trump. We didn’t. That’s important because he’s not just a dangerous leader, and an autocrat, he’s one that does not have a mandate of the people.

I get this way of thinking, but just to be clear: the US didn’t get the leader it deserved when Trump “won” the first time, despite receiving millions of fewer votes than Hilary. And almost certainly here, even if Trump “wins,” he will have gotten less votes.

That’s because there is a 2-3% bias in the current presidential electoral system, the Electoral College. We’re founded under a “1 person, 1 vote” ideology that our elections ignore.

So yes, I get the frustration. But we (the sane people) are all in this together, and the majority of voters in the US appear to still be sane, even if that doesn’t win the election by default. Solidarity would be the better move here.

The “socialist” and “Green party” posters who somehow are shocked, shocked you would call them pro-Trump astroturf accounts, when every action they take coincidentally has the effect of helping Trump.

The real giveaway is their refusal to equally assess left and right-wing threats. When it comes to voting for a democrat, any imperfection is an absolute justification for voting third party. When someone points out Trump will get into office because of it and what that means to Gaza, green policies, etc, they gish gallop and strawman until the conversation is fully derailed.

This is spectacular.

Trump is trying to delay? For what purpose? What on earth could his strategy be here? Who can fathom what he’s thinking with such a confounding move?

I love how Trump’s ghostwriters try to calibrate to him, and they never are quite able to make themselves dumb enough.

Whoever this individual is spreading these lies are dishonoring

Yeah, every time I read this to try to understand the grammar, I get a little dumber.