Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
Most likely actually a SocDem rather than a DemSoc.
User ID: 3648
It’s, uh, rather off-topic, but
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
3mo ago
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
3mo ago
I’m in the same boat, albeit from an opposing political valence. Where to even start?
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
3mo ago
Pretty much sums up my own position.
I’m certainly not going to cheer over Kirk’s death, and it’s not exactly ideal to see people cross the line from ‘ambivalence’ to outright ‘saying Kirk deserved it’…
But at the same time, I understand a lot of the frustration currently gnawing at my fellow disgruntled left-wingers. None of us are under the impression that if the situation had been reversed, and some left-wing influencer had been killed, that there would be tears shed by MAGA conservatives over it, nor any conciliatory hagiographies published by center-right publications.
Trump-era conservatism is loudly and proudly founded on naked tribalism and an explicit “fuck you” to the left, so the right demanding contrition from the left while simultaneously talking about how we need to be punished, rooted out, and generally crushed is pretty rich.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
3mo ago
I’d be lying if I said I was particularly sad to see him go.
Nonetheless, he was a human being; despite his odious actions, I’m certainly not happy to see him murdered. Hopefully whoever assassinated him gets apprehended.
Nor, for that matter, am I looking forward to the potential fallout of his assassination.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
3mo ago
I am not trying to justify it. I am only trying to get people to understand it. But I don't think OP did understand it, with that baffling talk of "for no other reason than he wanted to".
It’s famously difficult to get someone to understand something when they don’t want to understand it.
Some of it has to do with it being very easy to ignore and talk past someone once you’ve pattern-matched them to “the Enemy”, even if you’re on ‘their side’…
…And some of it has to do with them thinking that they already understand the doubtlessly-malicious real motives of the Enemy, and not particularly being interested in being corrected- after all, how can you be sure that it’s not just Enemy action to try and sow uncertainty about the truth of their sinister motives, and attempt to sway your mind with their propaganda?
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
3mo ago
I guess “golden ages” are just the dead-cat bounces of civilizational history.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
So, you live in a different reality to me
Sure seems that way!
your side is incapable of even token compromise
Things I Didn’t Say Count: 1
“My side” isn’t incapable by many miles, but I admit I am increasingly skeptical of the value of token compromise in this era of polarization- and that sentiment is increasingly spreading, and probably for good reason. I believe political triangulation as the key to electoral success is definitely on its way out.
you think three internet edgelords are the marginal Republican voter?
Things I Didn’t Say Count: 2
Certainly not the marginal Republican voter… but I do think the radical fringe currently in the driver’s seat of the GOP are shifting ever-closer to said edgelord’s viewpoints. I can always hope that the GOP regains some modicum of sanity before the Overton Window of the ‘general right’ shifts too far, but admittedly I’m not holding my breath.
You don't need to convince Yarvin of anything. You need to convince fifty thousand midwesterners.
Correct.
But because you don't think some blogger who has been banned from most internet forums would accept it, you don't think it's even worth attempting.
Things I Didn’t Say Count: 3
I do believe it’s pointless and not worth the effort to try and reach out to the non-trivial portion of those midwesterners who dyed-in-the-wool partisan, they’re a lost cause. The rest can probably be reached with appropriate (and, critically, appropriately targeted messaging), though that’s not going to an easy task, and I’m deeply pessimistic that the Democratic Party (or any single party, for that matter) will be able to thread that needle. Outrage-farming and negative partisanship are probably the future, I fear.
But please, for the love of god, don't take my word for anything. You stay so angry at (who was it again?) :checks notes: Curtis Yarvin that you can't support politicians who maybe could see their way to enforcing basic public safety.
I know you don’t believe this (‘alternate realities’ strike again), but the public is already safe. It could and should be safer, but I don’t think you and I are going to agree on what the best pathways to that goal are. Especially if the word ‘Bukele’ pops up anywhere in that discussion.
Maybe someone who lies and pays a little lip service to having a border? Even Obama did that!
I fundamentally disagree with a lot of the ideas around the border, but we did, in fact, have someone who paid a little lip service to the border.
His name was Joe Biden.
It notably didn’t work out so great for him. Turns out that when your political opponents are working over time to signal-boost (not to mention help create) a ‘problem’, lip service alone isn’t enough unless you’re willing to loudly, blatantly lie and try to match your opponents noise making with your own. Also probably the future, I fear, if Newsom’s new PR efforts are anything to go by.
Maybe accept people in the party who don't support gay marriage? You know, like Obama!
Fortunately, that ship has already sailed, and homosexual acceptance seems here to stay, despite efforts by conservative influencers to roll back acceptance among Republicans.
Unfortunately, that particular battle being won settled enough lead directly towards the trans panic as the current wedge hysteria, but alas.
Maybe someone who would write some legislation to crack down on a nationwide crime wave like Joe Biden and sign it like Bill Clinton?
Legislation, such as…?
Please, be specific.
There's just nothing to be done! Those wacky Republicans just won't accept anything!
Pretty much, yeah.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
Assuming Trump’s still alive and functional enough to exert the at least the same level of pressure on GOP Congress-critters that he can currently… I’d be willing to wager $100 (probably the limit on how much I’m willing to drop on this kind of bet) that either some kind of bill along those lines gets proposed, passes committee, and goes to a floor vote in at least one chamber… Or that SCOTUS effectively overturns the 22nd Amendment first, and makes it a moot point (I’m skeptical that’d be the first line of attack, but IDK).
———
[Granted, I’m predicating the above scenario on the assumption that the GOP will probably have a roughly similar narrow majority in Congress, so on the {IMO unlikely} chance they get utterly shellacked in the midterms, I guess that could affect the odds… But IDK in which direction, a rump GOP Congress might decide Trump’s past his expiration date and try to turn on him… Or they could double-down on supporting him and support the bill knowing it won’t pass so they can claim “they tried”. Hard to say.]
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
Alright, since you seem to be asking in earnest, I’ll attempt to give you my earnest expectations (assuming this damn phone doesn’t eat my reply halfway through and I promptly give up trying to reply out of frustration):
Bottom line is, I am 99.99%+ sure that Trump will not leave the office of the Presidency except in either a coffin or a body bag unless he is absolutely, 110% certain that, for the rest of however many years he still has left to live, there will never be a leftist administration in power capable of prosecuting him for his countless misdeeds committed during (and almost certainly after) his time in office.
That would require either (a) Trump himself to stay in office until he drops dead, or (b) he feels that he can safely hand off the Presidency to a hand-picked successor who has both the personal loyalty AND unbreakable political backing to continue protecting Trump from ALL possible criminal investigations, whether state or federal, for the next 4-20 years, no matter how the political winds may blow in the future.
Even if we assume such a capable successor exists, I’d still estimate at least 55/45 odds in favor of (a) rather than (b), on the grounds that Trump is a vain, entitled person uninclined to give up power unless he absolutely has to… and also that he has specifically floated the idea of serving at least a third term (if not more) multiple times- and that, more generally, Trump seems to view the Constitution as just a piece of parchment that exists as an inconvenient speedbump for his desires, 22nd Amendment included.
Given the fact that Trump can’t be certain such a successor will exist (and that, in the face of possible political blowback driven by the likely-disastrous long-term outcomes of his boneheaded policies, such a successor would be able to guarantee his immunity), I expect the odds of scenario (a) versus (b) to be higher than 55/45, especially if the midterms and the end period of his current term start to cause visible cracks in his base.
Thus, I’m expecting probably ~80% odds that Trump will attempt to stay in office by any means necessary, unless he has to cede power.
The most likely scenario I see playing out is that, after trying to ‘rig’ the midterms via redistricting, every conceivable procedural trick in the book, and (especially in the unlikely scenario that the midterms looks to be a blowout loss for the GOP), claiming massive election fraud and ordering recounts until a more acceptable outcome is reached, Trump will have one of his more shameless toadies in Congress (looking especially at Andy Ogles, who’s already happily floating this) propose some kind of legislation to allow Trump specifically to serve additional terms. If the GOP manages to retain any kind of majority, I expect that legislation to get put to a vote, and ultimately pass along party lines despite initial token unease from more ‘moderate’ Republicans. SCOTUS will either rule in favor of the legislation once it’s inevitably challenged, or more likely just refuse to hear any challenges to it while striking down attempts to void the legislation, or some other similar method to punt the decision. Trump will promptly run for a third term, and stands a good chance to win due to a combination of polarization and using the federal government to try and secure his odds of victory.
If the above legislative gambit proves unsuccessful, I expect Trump to instead lean on the conservative SCOTUS majority to just find some excuse to suddenly decide that the 22nd Amendment has actually been unconstitutional all along- at which point, he’ll run again, and refer back to my previous remarks about his odds of winning.
If that doesn’t work, I expect him to instead claim that since the 2020 election was “stolen” from him, that he deserves a third term as compensation.
If that doesn’t work, I expect him to either run again, damn what the 22nd says, using some flimsy, nonsensical legal argument. This includes hairbrained schemes like having Vance run for President with Trump as VP, and then making him immediately cede the office.
If Trump tries the above strategies and none of them work and he can’t run again (or if he is able to run again but loses), I am completely, 100% certain he will then immediately call fraud, and then most likely (80%+ odds) that he’ll do everything possible to avoid having to cede power unless he’s compelled to do…
…And yes, if all other alternatives fail, include him doing (another, less half-assed this time) coup, and either unofficially or officially declaring himself President for the rest of his life, if he thinks he can get away with it.
Cards laid, I suppose.
Adopting the exact same tactics as your side is a "spiral toward civil war"? What was it when your people were doing it?
Bullshit. I don’t really care if the mods ding me for ‘incivility’, or whatever- this is so wildly in opposition to the reality I’m familiar with that I can only conclude that one of us has a wildly distorted recollection of the past warped by echo-chambered propaganda.
Of course, neither of us are going to own up to that, so I guess we’re just going to disagree and keep living in our own bespoke realities.
On a related note-
There's nothing you think the left should do to de-escalate? No off-ramps you see? The entire elite superstructure of our nation and the world just has zero accountability? No amends that could be made? No compromise?
I genuinely do not believe that there is anything the left could do short of total, 100% concession to every single rightist demand under the sun (and mass ritualistic suicide probably wouldn’t hurt) that wouldn’t then immediately lead to right-leaning culture warriors immediately finding some other issue to then blame the evil leftoids for. Chris Rufo (and Yarvin, and Dread Jim, and whatever other deranged grievance-collector currently featured on TheMotte today) and his ilk will always be able to find another scapegoat.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
The closer any business is to being government run the more of a problem I have with it's operations being decided via politics.
I regret to inform you that business and politics are inseparably intertwined aspects of the same continuum, if not just one and the same, full-stop.
For better or worse, there is not, never has been, and likely never will be a clean, non-arbitrary divide between the two.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
Yet.
I’m pessimistic; there’s still 3+ years to go, and I personally expect it to last much longer than that.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
Well, at least you’re honest.
In the spirit of fairness, let the spiral continue towards civil war, I guess.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
Guess we’re just going to disagree, then.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
Your response hasn't given any consideration to the mirror image aspect of my original post. I encourage you to try to put aside your preconceptions and consider how the other side might have felt looking at the BLM situation of 2020-2021, and the power that mob mentality held at the time. Can you sympathize with someone else's fear of the lack of checks on that power, the same way you worry that the checks and balances in government won't be enough to stop Trump? Can you see how someone on the other side would have had similar reservations about those in power at the time doing nothing to curb that power, and to the contrary actually cheering it on?
I'm not asking you to agree that those concerns were valid or that the situations are equivalent - I'm asking whether you can see the structural similarity in how both sides experience fear when they perceive threats from power sources they believe lack adequate restraints.
I’m well aware that the ‘other side’ views the current situation as being a symmetrical response to BLM, the COVID lockdowns, and generally views the Trump Administration’s lawlessness as being a counter-defection preceded by and justified by the left defecting ‘first’.
However, I simply reject that framing, and I very much do not see these situations as being similarly symmetrical to begin with. So while you’re correct to say that
If you can only acknowledge that the other side had feelings while maintaining that your fears are categorically different or more legitimate, then you're missing the point about how these dynamics work. Your response kind of proves the point about us trusting different institutional mechanisms without engaging with it ,
I do not think any of that really matters.
I’m sufficiently burnt out on people trying to play the ‘both sides’ card that I don’t really care to entertain those kinds of arguments anymore, even if they are simply being posed from a pure ‘devils advocate’ position. Both sides are not the same.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
So I'm not sure why you care Trump is doing it?
Because I dispute the premise- that
Once again "leftoids" have already done this in government.
I very much don’t grant that assertion.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
I'm sorry but as someone else on the left the fault here is entirely that of the Democrats.
I’m quite comfortable blaming both the Democratic Party for being an incompetent embarrassment yet again as well as the general public for deciding that Trump’s flaws were somehow less glaring than Kamala.
Kamala was so disrespectful and contemptuous of her own base - to say nothing of the genocide she ran on supporting
Remember how Schumer attacked Trump? By calling him a coward who chickened out of starting another war and murdering more people in the middle east. The public was actually doing the right thing in this case by voting for the less bloodthirsty candidate
Ah yes, let’s stick it to the DNC and those fake lefties who aren’t sufficiently supportive of the Palestinians by… helping the GOP opposition that’s even less sympathetic to the Palestinians win the elections and get into power.
Because surely that’ll help, somehow.
Fucking hell, sometimes I think we lefties deserve to lose for being unable to think strategically.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
Unfortunately, it’s clear now that even Trump can learn from his initial mistakes.
But hey, public was dumb enough to vote him in again, so I guess it’s time for us to collectively reap the whirlwind.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
I'd submit an underlying root of the fear Trump inspires for many people is the fear of a lack of control.
Bingo. We’re on Trump’s Wild ride now, and neither he nor anyone else knows where the fuck it’s going or how much damage he’s going to do along the way, whether in the long-term or short-term, domestically or internationally, politically/economically/militarily or ‘merely’ socially/culturally…
…But what we can be sure of is that there’s basically fuck-all any of us can individually do to try and reassert any semblance of ‘control’ over the situation, and that what happens next, good or bad, will happen regardless.
Which, granted, same as it ever was, but that doesn’t make it any less unnerving.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
Eh fuck it.
Since there doesn’t seem to be any other people who are actually “terrified by Trump” answering (that is to say, leftists) aside from some light interjections by @Skibboleth, I suppose I ought to chime in and try to provide some actual responses, instead of just relying on admirable-but-inaccurate “steelmans” from more modal right-wingers who are at least trying to understand the screen the “other side” is watching
…Or worse, less-charitable right-wingers who neither understand the perspective of us Others nor want to understand, who instead just chalk it all up to pure TDS.
———
Honestly, though, you pretty much answer your own question in your opening paragraph;
I mostly tune out Trump news because I assume much of it involves scare tactics or misleading framing by his detractors.
Believe it or not, a lot of the time people actually do believe in what they say they do.
When my wife brings up concerns about his supposedly authoritarian actions, my general response is that if what he's doing is illegal, the governmental process will handle it
Trump is openly, proudly purging the government of anyone willing and able to disagree with him. I do not share your optimistic read on the situation. In other words,
I have faith that our institutions have the checks and balances to deal with any presidential overreach appropriately.
Well I don’t.
The key difference I see is that the government has built-in checks and balances designed to prevent abuse of power, while social movements and mob pressure operate without those same institutional restraints. It seems like we each trust different institutional mechanisms, but I can't help but think that formal governmental processes with built-in restraints are more reliable than grassroots social pressure that operates without those same safeguards.
The fact that the administration has, in the past few months, been hard at work trying to bypass, eliminate, and ignore those built-in restraints gives me a very different read on the situation.
However, it’s the fact that the Republican half of the government (and at least a third of the population) is either doing nothing to stop it, or even actively cheer it on, that really causes me to despair over the situation.
I’m currently doubtful that Vance will be the GOP nominee in 2028, but that has nothing to due with the Groypers having any actual pull in the GOP (I’m sure Fuentes would certainly like to believe that they do), and everything to do with my growing certainty that Trump himself will run again in 2028, damn the legality of it- and that the MAGA base will line up to support him, regardless of what the Constitution says.
IDK what exactly his approach will be, but he has a lot of options- get some toady in Congress like Andy Ogles to promulgate some law that allows him to run again, bully the Supreme Court into finding some excuse to overturn the 22nd Amendment, claim the 2028 elections were rigged and that he’s obligated to stay in power as some kind of ‘caretaker’ figure, claim that since he was denied his rightful 2020 term by Crooked Joe Biden, he deserves to serve a third term…
Unless the 2026 midterms deliver a Congress actually capable of impeaching and removing him, I’m calling >90% odds that Trump doesn’t intend to leave the Presidency except in a coffin.
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
assuming that services are available
Kinda the main stumbling block, tho, innit?
Dirty_DemSoc
Registered Demoncrat
4mo ago
(Un)fortunately I am a pretty standard-issue Rootless Cosmopolitan, so I guess I’ll have to make do with my cat, for now!
Fuck it, we’ll do it live, then
/images/17591898119670463.webp
More options
Context Copy link