I'm not sure if this comment was in response to mine - I think the Substack thread-tracking mechanism is really hard to follow - but I appreciated it, regardless. In some ways, I see where you're coming from; the "left" (media, commentariat, politicians, whoever) has overplayed its hand many times. I would often read an article that made…
I'm not sure if this comment was in response to mine - I think the Substack thread-tracking mechanism is really hard to follow - but I appreciated it, regardless. In some ways, I see where you're coming from; the "left" (media, commentariat, politicians, whoever) has overplayed its hand many times. I would often read an article that made him sound like a sociopath (like when he booted a crying baby from a rally, if I'm remembering correctly) and then I'd watch the video to see how it ACTUALLY played out, and sometimes they definitely seemed to diverge.
As I wrote recently, I saw him speak in Nashville. I have had a hard time wrapping my head around the difference between what I sort of expected, based on everything I hear (frothing incoherence) and what I experienced (a guy who knows how to work a room, kinda funny, a little rambling, but definitely not perceptibly insane).
But forget how the left has treated him; he seems to be doing just fine (aside from political violence, which is not the point here). You speak of discontinuing rights abuses, presumably free speech at the top of the list. Is that the main point? I would definitely agree that curtailment of free speech is fundamentally unAmerican, but I believe that freedom can be buttressed with real pressure, that we still have extraordinarily free speech in this country, and that we can fight to preserve it without resorting to accepting eveyrthing else Trump stands for which, as far as I can see, is not much. I mean, even at the Bitcoin conference he was wooing everyone with "Bitcoin this, Bitcoin that" and now he's got his own shitcoin coming out. Really? I'd love to imagine all of the Bitcoiners waking up and fully acknowledging that someone else wrote that speech, that it was just shilling for votes, that he has no fucking clue what Bitcoin is, but I'm not holding my breath. They just want a pro-crypto atmosphere, everything else be damned. I cannot imagine how amazingly relaxing it would be to be a one-issue voter.
What does he stand for that you actually agree with? Is he credibly anti-war? The comment above (while I have not fact-checked, specifically) speaks to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Do you think deregulation and tax breaks will clean up rivers and purify the air? I mean, do you want to get on an airplane whose safety has been verified, essentially, by the boardroom responsible for returning maximum profit to shareholders? Are you cool with the "concept of a plan" stuff for healthcare (to name a few random thoughts that come to mind)?
This is where I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall. Philosophically, I see almost nothing in Trump's positioning that leads to any positive outcomes whatsoever. It's as simple as that. Yes, he's been sort of like a punching bag for the left's deepest fears, in many ways, but in MANY of those ways, he's earned it. He's not threading any needles like RFK. He's just a giant inkblot upon which we project all of our shit. He likes being an inkblot; it works for him. I don't feel bad for him, and I certainly see zero evidence that he's going to "dislodge the borg" (a reference I had to look up, so I have no credibility there).
There are no easy answers to our problems. I think Trump offers a palatable "easy answer" that feels like it's backed up by some distant drumbeat of "natural order comes back into balance when the market takes care of itself" but I think that you have to be a world-class cherrypicker to find evidence to support that. On the other hand, I absolutely agree that the Democratic party has been abysmal in so many ways, stole the election from Bernie, lost the plot with things like defund the police, etc.
It's not just a "lesser of two evils" thing, though: I think one can be called out and shaped with pressure and work and long-term movement building (which we have not, in fact, really seen much of - even though it may have looked like it), and the other is like letting out a bull in a china shop. Sure, the bull in his natural habitat would be doing natural, nature-ey, bullish things; but if your society is modern and complicated — if your civilization has reached the point at which china shops are a thing — then bulls don't work.
I know this sounds argumentative but I really do appreciate your comment. I have been so baffled by all of this that I'm really just working out my thoughts out loud, and I apologize if it's more confrontational than I intended. I welcome your thoughts and push back, and would be happily called out for any errors or blind spots. I really need to figure this shit out.
No your comment is excellent. You have some points for sure!
For one thing, it’s not so much that I think Trump the man will dislodge any borgs, it’s more that he is such an interruption to the beltway insider to corporate pipeline. He truly is not one of them. Yes he has money and he’s been in business and he “makes deals” (or whatever) but he is not “one of them” and you can tell by the way he is treated. It’s not so much that I deeply support Trump but I find it striking that a cadre of people I DO trust and support have backed him. I profoundly trust RFKj and his judgment. Likewise for Tulsi Gabbard. Likewise for Bret Weinstein and his wife. It has been helpful for me to actually follow the thought process and shifts of these other people who were also total lifelong democrats.
You would be correct that my number one concern is free speech. I agree that our country is still remarkably free and thank goodness. Much of Europe is finding their leaders unaccountable to them by way of increasingly globalized governing bodies. They don’t have the same protections we do via our constitutional rights. I believe the assessment many before me have made that it was utterly intentional to put the second amendment immediately following the first. I believe it is not just a historical quirk. I think the founders realized we needed a robust and protected way to back up these rights. All to say I think there are MANY within our current regime that would “update” these inconvenient rights the first chance they get. You already have Hillary on TV advocating for criminally charging those who spread information they do not like (I believe she called it propaganda.)
To me Trump is exactly as you say: an ink blot. But I have observed he will change his mind. He will accept counsel. I am heartened by those he is surrounding himself with this go round (mostly).
He appointed the ex CEO of Exxon as Secretary of State. He has promised another tax cut for billionaires and his party will cut Medicare, increased the retirement wage, end all environmental protections and replace the EPA with MAGA and oil stooges. Already 65000 rape victims have been denied abortions including a 10 year old, an 11 year old and a 13 year old. And a mum of a six year old just died because she was denied abortions. And he talks about wanting to fuck his daughter, Ivanka https://www.ibtimes.com/12-times-donald-trump-acted-totally-inappropriately-ivanka-3068093
Not sure how abortion is Trumps problem at this point. The court spoke and the issue is with the states.
I agree that Trump isn’t great on everything. I see reason to believe he is open to changing his mind.
I made this comment somewhere else I think but at this point it’s triage. He isn’t itching to join the global governance orgy and continue restricting our constitutional rights. It’s that simple for me. He is clearly an outsider to what has been going on in our government for years and I’d rather not keep electing the same people that brought us many wars and the patriot act.
I never said he was a good person. I never said I believe him to be some kind of moral beacon.
For me it’s as simple as he seems capable of discontinuing the current agenda.
And Project 2025 is a think-tank wish list. Has nothing to do with what Trump will actually do. In fact, he has said more than once he had nothing to do with it. If you look at his actual positions he’s pretty moderate by most standards.
P2025 has been written by Trump associates and is finance by the same people who finance Trump: Big Oil and evangelicals in particular.
Of course not everything will be implemented exactly as is.
But is is delusion and wishful thinking to imagine Trump will resist anything out of principle or to imagine he won't implement the worst excesses of authoritarianism. He is a natural authoritarian.
Trump is not moderate on abortion. He says women should be punished.
He is not moderate on immigration. He talks about immigrants "poisoning the blood of the nation" and plans to deport thousands including naturalised Americans.
He is an extremist when it comes to democratic process and refuses the first principle of a peaceful succession of power.
On believing women should he punished for abortion https://youtu.be/jGSttcyn2RI?si=s97vj1Lt1Nrg-ga5 (and I think someone would have to be beyond gullible to think Trump hasn't paid for a few abortions himself at least)
I trained in law and taught critical evaluation. I am very careful about where and how I source my info. It's at least as important as being discerning about what you eat.
Was there something else where you doubted veracity?
Where do you get your info and why do you trust it?
The Patriot Act was GOP legislation. Project 2025 will take this further: increasing surveillance, use of military against protest, removal of LGBTQ rights. It's the biggest threat to the constitution and to US democracy there has ever been. How much do you know about it? https://youtu.be/tjjWYWcBPyw?si=9PWJREPKK56F-UBP
On abortion Trump is absolutely responsible. He stacked the court with anti-abortion judges. He boasted that ending Roe vs Wade was his doing and called it "a beautiful thing". And that women should be punished for abortions. He cut a deal with evangelical fundamentalists.
What is your reason for believing he will change? He's been described by psychiatrists and many who know him intimately as a malignant narcissist. Which is obvious to anyone who knows this condition. He is driven entirely by self-interest. He's an unstable and dangerous man.
His chief of staff described as as a "very, very evil man" and reprimanded him for his frequent vocalising of fantasies about sex with his daughter. He's deeply disturbed. It is not compassionate to pretend otherwise. It's solipsistuc psychic defence and a lack of compassion towards those he will hurt. Including the 6 year old boy who lost his mother this week when she was denied an abortion in a medical emergency.
I can see we have very different perspectives here and I respect yours, while I also deeply disagree.
We can get into the weeds here if you’d like but I get the sense you’d like a “gotcha” type moment.
To respond to what you’ve said though:
Trump did not stack the courts. He appointed who he appointed which is well within his job responsibilities. There is much talk amongst democrats about adding Supreme Court justices which is quite literally packing the courts. I agree that Trump says a lot of things I don’t necessarily agree with. He says many things I wish he wouldn’t say. What I will say though is that he is not more creepy to me than the Clinton’s, let’s say. Creepiness seems to be the personality type in politics from what I can see. Many professionals have claimed he is a narcissist and it doesn’t make it so. Consider lots of people have essentially painted him as the second coming of Hitler which is a stretch if I’m being generous. Let’s say he doesn’t hide his worst qualities.
The abortion story I’ve heard cited so frequently over the last days is not a political story. It’s a tragedy and it has nothing to do with being denied abortion. Georgia has exceptions for incest, rape and maternal health. It’s a terrible story but not a political talking point.
And about the GOP bringing us the Patriot Act: it was everyone. There was one congressman who voted against it. One. The Bush/Cheney/old guard has fully endorsed Kamala which tells me quite a lot.
Again, I respect your perspective entirely and that we don’t agree. Just trying to shed light on my point.
I've given loads of sources on this thread. All I stuff I know prior but found sources for while writing. So I don't understand your question about where I get my info from.
I doubt he meant that Trump was genocidal, or wants to invade his neighbours though he's certainly racist.
But like Hitler he's the conductor for a cult of personality fueled by hate and delusion, scapegoats minorities while being backed by big business and he's selling people a false prospectus.
It has everything to do with abortion. "She showed up at Piedmont Henry Hospital in need of a routine procedure to clear it from her uterus, called a dilation and curettage, or D&C.
But just that summer, her state had made performing the procedure a felony, with few exceptions. Any doctor who violated the new Georgia law could be prosecuted and face up to a decade in prison."
Trump displays all the characteristics of narcissism, it's perfectly obvious. His boasting, silly lies about cried size, never being wrong, always taking credit, claiming to know more than anyone about anything, impulsiveness, vicious personal attacks, lack of empathy. He is an empty deeply wounded man. He needs care. But he shouldn't be a leader!
His narcissism is displayed in the way he sexually objectifies his daughter.
Re Trump's creepiness:
"
#3: ‘If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father’
During a 2015 interview with Donald Trump for Rolling Stone, reporter Paul Solotaroff praised Ivanka Trump. The soon-to-be president’s response? “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father…”
#2: ‘Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your own daughter than your wife’?
Courtesy of a 2016 Buzzfeed News scoop, the (second) creepiest incident of them all.
In an early draft of a piece by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, he purportedly wrote that “President-elect Donald Trump once asked, ‘Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your own daughter than your wife?’ — but the quote was quietly removed before the syndicated column was published.”
Yes, it’s wrong, Donald.
#1: The absolute worst of them all (and it’s NSFW)
According to a soon-to-be-published book, Blowback: A Warning to Save Democracy From the Next Trump, the former president “regularly made lewd comments about his daughter Ivanka and fantasized about what it would be like to have sex with her.”
According to The New Republic, “’Aides said he talked about Ivanka Trump’s breasts, her backside and what it might be like to have sex with her, remarks that once led [former Chief of Staff] John Kelly to remind the president that Ivanka was his daughter,’ Taylor, who served as a Department of Homeland Security chief of staff under Trump, wrote in his book.”"
Clinton certainly abused his power by having sex with an intern. He may have been sexually predatory to other women. Nothing proven. Trump has been found guilty of 'grabbing a woman by the pussy' by a jury of his peers. And said these unspeakable things about his daughter.
Theres nothing equivalent to that with Clinton. I think you're letting Trump off the hook with a false equivalence or low expectations.
My stomach turns when I read these things. You?
He's unwell. And poor Ivanka to have a father who reduces her like that. It must feel terribly unsafe.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "gotcha". I'm interested in evidence. That's all. Intuition is the right lens for decisions about our personal lives, to filter through a chaotic media landscape and come to a decision about voting, we need reason, including source evaluation.
I share your concern about rights. How much do you know about Project 2025? It's far worse than the Republican Patriot Act. Which actually 63 Democrats opposed and just three Republicans https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
What specifically is your concern about the Dems re rights?
I am avidly reading this thread as the days go along. I would very much like to see a response to your comment here, and hope Polyxena responds. I'm looking at evidence and well thought out ideas throughout. Thank you both for your participation in discourse.
I'd like to see that too. My experience those who view Trump favourably know little about him and like it that way. So I'd be surprised if she responds.
It’s not that I view Trump favorably - it’s that the other option is so horrendous I can’t imagine where we would be in another 4 years. I think people are more informed than you think and simply don’t agree with you.
A few children who US voters might bear in mind when they go to the polls.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66116536 “A man has been sentenced to life in prison for the rape of a nine-year-old Ohio girl in a case that made headlines after the victim had to travel to another US state for an abortion.
Gerson Fuentes, 28, pleaded guilty to two felony counts of rape in last year's attack.
The child went to Indiana to terminate the pregnancy after her home state restricted access to the procedure.
It happened after the US Supreme Court overturned abortion rights”
But amid confusion over what abortion care is allowed in Mississippi, Regina says she was unaware Ashley qualified for an abortion in Mississippi under the law's exception for cases of rape. Yet, even if she was aware, it's unlikely Ashley would have been able to get an abortion in Mississippi; with heavy restrictions in effect and the high penalties on physicians who violate the abortion ban, it is unlikely she would have found a doctor willing to perform a procedure.”
You might imagine how and if you could explain to these children that your concerns about freedom of speech were more important than their capacity to choose.
I disagree. There are millions of Americans who have diabetes because of poor diet choices. There are millions of American who have distorted views because they don't know how to evaluate the media consume. 2/3rds of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen https://theconversation.com/why-do-millions-of-americans-believe-the-2020-presidential-election-was-stolen-from-donald-trump-224016 - which was simply a lie and has been proven so multiple times in court. Including Fox 'News' paying out 787m dollars for knowingly spreading this lie (freedom of speech, even to lie but not freedom from the consequences of speech).
You yourself believed Trump to be a moderate on abortion who was somehow not responsible for ending Roe vs Wade. And that he was not linked to Project 2025. No doubt those interpretations were based on what you consumed. And I believe I have demonstrated conclusively that there is solid evidence that on abortion he is not a moderate, that he took ownership of the decision and celebrated it. And that he knows and is alignment with the architects of Project 2025.
My concern about Dems re: rights is that you hear Hillary Clinton day on national television that those who spread misinformation should be prosecuted. You hear Tim Walz say that the first amendment does not protect hate speech. Of course it does. As a lawyer you should know that the first amendment protects both of those things. This is the party who coerced Facebook into censoring Americans during Covid. These are just a handful of examples. I don’t see the same animus amongst republicans to censor and control information.
I looked through your sources and it strikes me that most of them are left leaning media outlets. The entire media leans heavily in favor of the democrats and heavily against Trump. These are media outlets that have promoted the Steel Dossier and Russiagate pandemonium. They killed the Hunter Biden laptop story that we now know isn’t “russian disinformation.”
I guess I have observed this happen so many times that I can no longer trust anything they tell me. That seems like a reasonable response to continuously being lied to.
And again - that propublica story about this mother who tragically died from sepsis was not a result of the abortion law in Georgia. They have exceptions for that exact situation. Clearly defined exceptions. You can read it in the law. I agree it’s awful but it isn’t a political talking point. I actually find it reprehensible that it’s being used as such. There’s a lot of nuance in there. We can’t know her previous health history. To just say she died because of an abortion ban is just simply not accurate.
Salon is another such publication that has made it their job to get democrats elected. These are not objective sources.
I favor Matt Taibbi. I think his reporting is near impeccable and he admits when he got something wrong. A green flag from my stand point.
I think Glenn Greenwald is fair and reports well on free speech issues and government corruption.
Im interested in reporters that report fairly.
I have watched our press turn into a vicious attack dog for the establishment.
They have not challenged Kamala on anything meaningful that I can tell. They have completely lost credibility and I’m not sure they can earn it back.
The courts are losing their credibility too. Now the media can say “Trump is a convicted felon” when really what happened was the court was used to neuter a political opponent. It’s reprehensible. You are telling me that creepy comments he has made are a more important factor than the fact that all around us our systems of law and Justice, our free press, our constitutional rights are being made a mockery of. We have a regime right now that is pushing for a nuclear conflict, full stop, rather than deescalating. We have a regime that installed a candidate with no voting process. And if you want to split hairs here - if Trump claimed the election was stolen….what the hell do you call what happened in 2016. Every media outlet, many democrats just simply decided Trump “isn’t my president.” They blamed it on everything but their inability to appeal to a large portion of the country which they conveniently labeled “deplorable” so as to not have to listen to them. This is part of what woke me the hell up to the depth of institutional dishonesty.
The republic is indeed being threatened but not by Trump. I don’t think he’s some kind of second coming. I don’t think he’s here to fight demons or liberate us. I don’t think he’s a particularly good person. But he’s made it this far. He has people I trust deeply around him - people that have given up much to tell the truth. To me he seems like a last ditch effort to break up the consolidation of power in Washington. He’s a disruption to business as usual. There is much I don’t agree with. I don’t feel like I need to defend every bizarre, gross, or mean comment he’s ever made, I feel like I’ve stated that repeatedly. Just because I would vote for a politician doesn’t mean I agree with everything they’ve ever said or done.
It’s possible we may never see eye to eye here and that’s fine with me. But from what I can see you are drinking from the same poisoned well of information that has brought us to the brink.
Re sources - I don't think your filter is nuanced enough. Sure Salon is progressive editorially that doesn't mean it's reporting of what Kelly said is inaccurate. It is widely reported elsewhere. Media across the free world accurately reports Trump as a sexual predator, a fraudster and a liar. Among other things. That's not anti-Trump. It is pro-reality.
Re 'Russiagate' - I wonder how nuanced your view is here too. The Mueller Report conclusively found that Russia was absolutely interfering in the election and that Trump's campaign had multiple meetings with them. "Collsuion" as a legal term is a very high bar and was unproven. Not exoneration. Unproven.
": Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.
While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/
Re the mother (one of two) who died in Georgia, where are you getting your info?
"According to ProPublica, Thurman became pregnant with twins unexpectedly in 2022 and faced roadblocks to receiving reproductive care due to the state's ban. She went to North Carolina for a medication abortion but experienced rare complications after taking the prescribed abortion pills.
Thurman became septic in the hospital due to excess tissue in her uterus that did not shed from her body, causing a serious infection. Thurman needed a dilation and curettage, or D&C, a procedure in which tissue is removed from inside the uterus. However, Georgia's ban considers a D&C a felony if performed outside of specific circumstances and could land doctors behind bars for up to 10 years.
Thurman's health deteriorated for 20 hours before doctors finally took her to surgery. By then, it was too late, ProPublica's reporting says. Her heart stopped on the table.
Re freedom of speech. As per Alex Jones' freedom to lie for money about Sandy Hook, the grieving parents were free to sue the lying bastard.
Hate speech in most countries means incitement to violence. In Myanmar false stories were spread online about the Rohingya people, who were massacred as a result. A genocide. Do you disagree that those who incite violence should be prosecuted? Do you think people posting things likely to incite violence (eg the Jews are murdering Christian children in ritual sacrifice, we must rise up and rid ourselves of this Satanic menace, by force, blood for blood") should be prevented from doing so in anyway?
Do you think a guy putting up a sign saying "Swimming hole, Alligator free" while knowing the water was full of alligators should be able to do so? Knowingly spreading misinformation entirely likely to cause harm?
What about the issue of the hateful, racist conspiracy theories being broadcast by a billionaire on the media platform they own? Due to his extreme wealth he is almost infinitely more free than others. By this definition.
Re Tabibi and Greenwald. Both smart guys and great narrative weavers. Neither are accountable to editorial fact checking or have any obligation to provide balance. I know Tabibi less well. But Greenwald jumped the shark years ago and has become like a teenager who thinks his parents (progressives) are the worst while ignoring the rapist next door.
I asked for specific authoritarian measures by the Democrats. You gave two things they allegedly said. That's very weak evidence for a government in power. What have they DONE that is authoritarian in the last four years?
"In 2020, the Trump administration threatened to use force to quell protests, and actually did deploy federal agents and National Guard troops who arrested and used excessive force against protestors and journalists. If Trump secures a second term, this abuse of power is likely to recur and even escalate. Trump has already indicated that his administration would consider invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy the military to America’s cities — potentially targeting those with large BIPOC and immigrant communities — to suppress the right to protest. Trump has also indicated that his administration would attack online free expression by forcing media companies and online platforms to carry conservatives’ preferred speech.
As president, with federal law enforcement agencies under his control, Trump could carry out attacks on advocacy organizations and individuals he opposes. Indeed, on the campaign trail, Trump has praised violent crackdowns on campus protests, aligning with his previous attacks on academic freedom. In particular, he has threatened to deport student protestors who are not U.S. citizens, merging his attacks on free speech with his attacks on immigration. We also expect Trump to use his authority to further target media members and the freedom of the press to suppress negative stories about him or his administration.
Furthermore, Project 2025 has made clear that a second Trump administration intends to dismantle the already insufficient guardrails that prevent the president from abusing the executive branch’s power. The Supreme Court already removed one such guardrail in Trump v. United States, ruling that the president cannot be criminally prosecuted for “official acts,” including using the Justice Department for his personal and political bidding. Trump can use a politicized Justice Department and the vast array of federal agencies to attack voters, protestors, journalists, abortion care providers and patients, his political opponents and any others he perceives as “enemies.” Even now, Trump allies in Congress are trying to use their investigative tools to chill free speech, including targeting civil society organizations and activists engaged in protected advocacy, such as opposing the war in Gaza or supporting LGBTQ rights.
The dangers of the federal government targeting its opponents and vulnerable populations are multiplied by mass surveillance mechanisms that the ACLU has long fought to constrain. A second Trump administration could leverage surveillance programs such as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which authorizes the collection of communications between U.S. persons and people outside the United States, and which Congress has dangerously expanded to allow the government to search Americans’ private communications and information without a warrant and without notice.
Why It Matters: By punishing political enemies and stifling protest and dissent, a second Trump administration would break many of the checks and balances on the executive branch, and undermine the foundations of a functioning democracy. A second Trump administration will also pose a threat to our historic American tradition of robust, open political competition marked by spirited dissent and the foundational notion that the people have the final say."
I honestly think anyone who can read that and still think Trump is the right man to lead the country is in some kind of denial, trauma bond or delusion.
I am so thrilled to be having this conversation. Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply — not only were you gracious, but you also added a lot to the discussion and gave me much to think about.
I find myself straddling two worlds (or many); basically, my jeans are splitting LOL.
I agree with you that it has been totally illuminating to listen to people like the Weinsteins and others on that circuit (I haven't really paid close attention to Tulsi; maybe I should?). It's hard to listen to those in-depth interviews and not come away with some new insights that are glaringly absent from the broader conversation (I just looked at my list of 1,322 uncatalogued "notes" from such interviews — the day I get around to sorting those will feel like a national holiday — and saw the comment, from Weinstein (oh wait, it was Eric - I don't really know them that well, but have listened to both) that I found compelling enough to take down: "We are mistaking a redistribution of empathy for an expansion of empathy."
Things like that. You just don't get stuff like that in the broader conversation, and it just feels obviously true. I have written about this a bit: empathy, in my view, is like the feeling a parent (or I'll speak for myself) has when they have only one child and wonders how it's possible that there could possibly be enough love for the second child when you're pretty much exploding with love for the first. And then the second child comes, and you're like - oh, wait! it wasn't that the love had to be shared, it was that the quantity of available love simply doubled." Meaning that the way we view resources like empathy - withholding it from some in the name of showering it upon others - makes no sense.
Anyway, that's totally beside the point of our discussion. It's late and I am procrastinating dinner cleanup. I won't get into the weeds of the policy stuff you brought up at the moment, because I still have plenty of questions and can't quite muster the cognitive fortitude, but I didn't want to delay replying and expressing my appreciation for the dialogue. :)
I'm not sure if this comment was in response to mine - I think the Substack thread-tracking mechanism is really hard to follow - but I appreciated it, regardless. In some ways, I see where you're coming from; the "left" (media, commentariat, politicians, whoever) has overplayed its hand many times. I would often read an article that made him sound like a sociopath (like when he booted a crying baby from a rally, if I'm remembering correctly) and then I'd watch the video to see how it ACTUALLY played out, and sometimes they definitely seemed to diverge.
As I wrote recently, I saw him speak in Nashville. I have had a hard time wrapping my head around the difference between what I sort of expected, based on everything I hear (frothing incoherence) and what I experienced (a guy who knows how to work a room, kinda funny, a little rambling, but definitely not perceptibly insane).
But forget how the left has treated him; he seems to be doing just fine (aside from political violence, which is not the point here). You speak of discontinuing rights abuses, presumably free speech at the top of the list. Is that the main point? I would definitely agree that curtailment of free speech is fundamentally unAmerican, but I believe that freedom can be buttressed with real pressure, that we still have extraordinarily free speech in this country, and that we can fight to preserve it without resorting to accepting eveyrthing else Trump stands for which, as far as I can see, is not much. I mean, even at the Bitcoin conference he was wooing everyone with "Bitcoin this, Bitcoin that" and now he's got his own shitcoin coming out. Really? I'd love to imagine all of the Bitcoiners waking up and fully acknowledging that someone else wrote that speech, that it was just shilling for votes, that he has no fucking clue what Bitcoin is, but I'm not holding my breath. They just want a pro-crypto atmosphere, everything else be damned. I cannot imagine how amazingly relaxing it would be to be a one-issue voter.
What does he stand for that you actually agree with? Is he credibly anti-war? The comment above (while I have not fact-checked, specifically) speaks to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Do you think deregulation and tax breaks will clean up rivers and purify the air? I mean, do you want to get on an airplane whose safety has been verified, essentially, by the boardroom responsible for returning maximum profit to shareholders? Are you cool with the "concept of a plan" stuff for healthcare (to name a few random thoughts that come to mind)?
This is where I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall. Philosophically, I see almost nothing in Trump's positioning that leads to any positive outcomes whatsoever. It's as simple as that. Yes, he's been sort of like a punching bag for the left's deepest fears, in many ways, but in MANY of those ways, he's earned it. He's not threading any needles like RFK. He's just a giant inkblot upon which we project all of our shit. He likes being an inkblot; it works for him. I don't feel bad for him, and I certainly see zero evidence that he's going to "dislodge the borg" (a reference I had to look up, so I have no credibility there).
There are no easy answers to our problems. I think Trump offers a palatable "easy answer" that feels like it's backed up by some distant drumbeat of "natural order comes back into balance when the market takes care of itself" but I think that you have to be a world-class cherrypicker to find evidence to support that. On the other hand, I absolutely agree that the Democratic party has been abysmal in so many ways, stole the election from Bernie, lost the plot with things like defund the police, etc.
It's not just a "lesser of two evils" thing, though: I think one can be called out and shaped with pressure and work and long-term movement building (which we have not, in fact, really seen much of - even though it may have looked like it), and the other is like letting out a bull in a china shop. Sure, the bull in his natural habitat would be doing natural, nature-ey, bullish things; but if your society is modern and complicated — if your civilization has reached the point at which china shops are a thing — then bulls don't work.
I know this sounds argumentative but I really do appreciate your comment. I have been so baffled by all of this that I'm really just working out my thoughts out loud, and I apologize if it's more confrontational than I intended. I welcome your thoughts and push back, and would be happily called out for any errors or blind spots. I really need to figure this shit out.
haha I'm laughing reading you and following your back and forth thought processes - I relate! And I am open - this is not a game based on logic...
haha I'm so glad you're following and that it resonates! it is DEFINITELY not a game based on logic. That's so important to bear in mind!
So well put 🙏
No your comment is excellent. You have some points for sure!
For one thing, it’s not so much that I think Trump the man will dislodge any borgs, it’s more that he is such an interruption to the beltway insider to corporate pipeline. He truly is not one of them. Yes he has money and he’s been in business and he “makes deals” (or whatever) but he is not “one of them” and you can tell by the way he is treated. It’s not so much that I deeply support Trump but I find it striking that a cadre of people I DO trust and support have backed him. I profoundly trust RFKj and his judgment. Likewise for Tulsi Gabbard. Likewise for Bret Weinstein and his wife. It has been helpful for me to actually follow the thought process and shifts of these other people who were also total lifelong democrats.
You would be correct that my number one concern is free speech. I agree that our country is still remarkably free and thank goodness. Much of Europe is finding their leaders unaccountable to them by way of increasingly globalized governing bodies. They don’t have the same protections we do via our constitutional rights. I believe the assessment many before me have made that it was utterly intentional to put the second amendment immediately following the first. I believe it is not just a historical quirk. I think the founders realized we needed a robust and protected way to back up these rights. All to say I think there are MANY within our current regime that would “update” these inconvenient rights the first chance they get. You already have Hillary on TV advocating for criminally charging those who spread information they do not like (I believe she called it propaganda.)
To me Trump is exactly as you say: an ink blot. But I have observed he will change his mind. He will accept counsel. I am heartened by those he is surrounding himself with this go round (mostly).
He appointed the ex CEO of Exxon as Secretary of State. He has promised another tax cut for billionaires and his party will cut Medicare, increased the retirement wage, end all environmental protections and replace the EPA with MAGA and oil stooges. Already 65000 rape victims have been denied abortions including a 10 year old, an 11 year old and a 13 year old. And a mum of a six year old just died because she was denied abortions. And he talks about wanting to fuck his daughter, Ivanka https://www.ibtimes.com/12-times-donald-trump-acted-totally-inappropriately-ivanka-3068093
https://www.salon.com/2023/06/28/ex-aide-john-kelly-was-disgusted-as-wondered-what-it-might-be-like-to-have-with-ivanka/
Trump is the most pro corporate and billionaire elite president the US has ever had.
How much do you know about him? It doesn't sound like your perception is informed by his policies
Not sure how abortion is Trumps problem at this point. The court spoke and the issue is with the states.
I agree that Trump isn’t great on everything. I see reason to believe he is open to changing his mind.
I made this comment somewhere else I think but at this point it’s triage. He isn’t itching to join the global governance orgy and continue restricting our constitutional rights. It’s that simple for me. He is clearly an outsider to what has been going on in our government for years and I’d rather not keep electing the same people that brought us many wars and the patriot act.
I never said he was a good person. I never said I believe him to be some kind of moral beacon.
For me it’s as simple as he seems capable of discontinuing the current agenda.
I know enough.
And Project 2025 is a think-tank wish list. Has nothing to do with what Trump will actually do. In fact, he has said more than once he had nothing to do with it. If you look at his actual positions he’s pretty moderate by most standards.
P2025 has been written by Trump associates and is finance by the same people who finance Trump: Big Oil and evangelicals in particular.
Of course not everything will be implemented exactly as is.
But is is delusion and wishful thinking to imagine Trump will resist anything out of principle or to imagine he won't implement the worst excesses of authoritarianism. He is a natural authoritarian.
Trump is not moderate on abortion. He says women should be punished.
He is not moderate on immigration. He talks about immigrants "poisoning the blood of the nation" and plans to deport thousands including naturalised Americans.
He is an extremist when it comes to democratic process and refuses the first principle of a peaceful succession of power.
I’m curious where the information you have given me is coming from. It seems pretty different than what I’ve gathered.
On believing women should he punished for abortion https://youtu.be/jGSttcyn2RI?si=s97vj1Lt1Nrg-ga5 (and I think someone would have to be beyond gullible to think Trump hasn't paid for a few abortions himself at least)
Which info specifically? I've given sources evidencing his perverse and predatory desire for his daughter.
On P2025 there are numerous good sources evidencing his close connection. Here's one:
https://www.forbes.com /sites/alisondurkee/2024/08 /15/what-we-know-about -trumps-link-to-project -2025-as-author-claims-ex -president-blessed-it-in -secret-recording/
I trained in law and taught critical evaluation. I am very careful about where and how I source my info. It's at least as important as being discerning about what you eat.
Was there something else where you doubted veracity?
Where do you get your info and why do you trust it?
Write a comment...
The Patriot Act was GOP legislation. Project 2025 will take this further: increasing surveillance, use of military against protest, removal of LGBTQ rights. It's the biggest threat to the constitution and to US democracy there has ever been. How much do you know about it? https://youtu.be/tjjWYWcBPyw?si=9PWJREPKK56F-UBP
On abortion Trump is absolutely responsible. He stacked the court with anti-abortion judges. He boasted that ending Roe vs Wade was his doing and called it "a beautiful thing". And that women should be punished for abortions. He cut a deal with evangelical fundamentalists.
What is your reason for believing he will change? He's been described by psychiatrists and many who know him intimately as a malignant narcissist. Which is obvious to anyone who knows this condition. He is driven entirely by self-interest. He's an unstable and dangerous man.
His chief of staff described as as a "very, very evil man" and reprimanded him for his frequent vocalising of fantasies about sex with his daughter. He's deeply disturbed. It is not compassionate to pretend otherwise. It's solipsistuc psychic defence and a lack of compassion towards those he will hurt. Including the 6 year old boy who lost his mother this week when she was denied an abortion in a medical emergency.
I can see we have very different perspectives here and I respect yours, while I also deeply disagree.
We can get into the weeds here if you’d like but I get the sense you’d like a “gotcha” type moment.
To respond to what you’ve said though:
Trump did not stack the courts. He appointed who he appointed which is well within his job responsibilities. There is much talk amongst democrats about adding Supreme Court justices which is quite literally packing the courts. I agree that Trump says a lot of things I don’t necessarily agree with. He says many things I wish he wouldn’t say. What I will say though is that he is not more creepy to me than the Clinton’s, let’s say. Creepiness seems to be the personality type in politics from what I can see. Many professionals have claimed he is a narcissist and it doesn’t make it so. Consider lots of people have essentially painted him as the second coming of Hitler which is a stretch if I’m being generous. Let’s say he doesn’t hide his worst qualities.
The abortion story I’ve heard cited so frequently over the last days is not a political story. It’s a tragedy and it has nothing to do with being denied abortion. Georgia has exceptions for incest, rape and maternal health. It’s a terrible story but not a political talking point.
And about the GOP bringing us the Patriot Act: it was everyone. There was one congressman who voted against it. One. The Bush/Cheney/old guard has fully endorsed Kamala which tells me quite a lot.
Again, I respect your perspective entirely and that we don’t agree. Just trying to shed light on my point.
I've given loads of sources on this thread. All I stuff I know prior but found sources for while writing. So I don't understand your question about where I get my info from.
Re Hitler comparisons his own VP worried that he was "America's Hitler": https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jd-vance-once-compared-trump-hitler-now-they-are-running-mates-2024-07-15/
I doubt he meant that Trump was genocidal, or wants to invade his neighbours though he's certainly racist.
But like Hitler he's the conductor for a cult of personality fueled by hate and delusion, scapegoats minorities while being backed by big business and he's selling people a false prospectus.
Psychologically both are malignant narcissists.
It has everything to do with abortion. "She showed up at Piedmont Henry Hospital in need of a routine procedure to clear it from her uterus, called a dilation and curettage, or D&C.
But just that summer, her state had made performing the procedure a felony, with few exceptions. Any doctor who violated the new Georgia law could be prosecuted and face up to a decade in prison."
https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-abortion-ban-amber-thurman-death
Why are you denying this?
Trump got Roe V Wade overturned by appointing anti-abortion judges: to of whom lied about their attitude to the law.
" "If it weren't for me, with Roe v. Wade, you wouldn't even be talking about this stuff," Trump said on Wednesday.
"For 54 years they were trying to get Roe v. Wade terminated, and I did it and I'm proud to have done it,""
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-boasts-role-ending-roe-wade-abortion-regulations/story?id=106280890
Why are you denying this?
Trump displays all the characteristics of narcissism, it's perfectly obvious. His boasting, silly lies about cried size, never being wrong, always taking credit, claiming to know more than anyone about anything, impulsiveness, vicious personal attacks, lack of empathy. He is an empty deeply wounded man. He needs care. But he shouldn't be a leader!
His narcissism is displayed in the way he sexually objectifies his daughter.
Re Trump's creepiness:
"
#3: ‘If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father’
During a 2015 interview with Donald Trump for Rolling Stone, reporter Paul Solotaroff praised Ivanka Trump. The soon-to-be president’s response? “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father…”
#2: ‘Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your own daughter than your wife’?
Courtesy of a 2016 Buzzfeed News scoop, the (second) creepiest incident of them all.
In an early draft of a piece by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, he purportedly wrote that “President-elect Donald Trump once asked, ‘Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your own daughter than your wife?’ — but the quote was quietly removed before the syndicated column was published.”
Yes, it’s wrong, Donald.
#1: The absolute worst of them all (and it’s NSFW)
According to a soon-to-be-published book, Blowback: A Warning to Save Democracy From the Next Trump, the former president “regularly made lewd comments about his daughter Ivanka and fantasized about what it would be like to have sex with her.”
According to The New Republic, “’Aides said he talked about Ivanka Trump’s breasts, her backside and what it might be like to have sex with her, remarks that once led [former Chief of Staff] John Kelly to remind the president that Ivanka was his daughter,’ Taylor, who served as a Department of Homeland Security chief of staff under Trump, wrote in his book.”"
https://forward.com/schmooze/357185/7-creepy-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-ivanka/
Clinton certainly abused his power by having sex with an intern. He may have been sexually predatory to other women. Nothing proven. Trump has been found guilty of 'grabbing a woman by the pussy' by a jury of his peers. And said these unspeakable things about his daughter.
Theres nothing equivalent to that with Clinton. I think you're letting Trump off the hook with a false equivalence or low expectations.
My stomach turns when I read these things. You?
He's unwell. And poor Ivanka to have a father who reduces her like that. It must feel terribly unsafe.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "gotcha". I'm interested in evidence. That's all. Intuition is the right lens for decisions about our personal lives, to filter through a chaotic media landscape and come to a decision about voting, we need reason, including source evaluation.
I share your concern about rights. How much do you know about Project 2025? It's far worse than the Republican Patriot Act. Which actually 63 Democrats opposed and just three Republicans https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
What specifically is your concern about the Dems re rights?
I am avidly reading this thread as the days go along. I would very much like to see a response to your comment here, and hope Polyxena responds. I'm looking at evidence and well thought out ideas throughout. Thank you both for your participation in discourse.
I'd like to see that too. My experience those who view Trump favourably know little about him and like it that way. So I'd be surprised if she responds.
It’s not that I view Trump favorably - it’s that the other option is so horrendous I can’t imagine where we would be in another 4 years. I think people are more informed than you think and simply don’t agree with you.
A few children who US voters might bear in mind when they go to the polls.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66116536 “A man has been sentenced to life in prison for the rape of a nine-year-old Ohio girl in a case that made headlines after the victim had to travel to another US state for an abortion.
Gerson Fuentes, 28, pleaded guilty to two felony counts of rape in last year's attack.
The child went to Indiana to terminate the pregnancy after her home state restricted access to the procedure.
It happened after the US Supreme Court overturned abortion rights”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/13-year-old-rape-victim-has-baby-amid-confusion-over-states-abortion-ban/ar-BB1klL3V “Ashley, who was 11 weeks pregnant at the time, said she was raped by a stranger in the yard of the family's home.
"She's just 12. She don't know nothing about having no babies. Nothing," Regina said.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/fighting-lives-women-impact-abortion-restrictions-post-roe/story?id=105563174
But amid confusion over what abortion care is allowed in Mississippi, Regina says she was unaware Ashley qualified for an abortion in Mississippi under the law's exception for cases of rape. Yet, even if she was aware, it's unlikely Ashley would have been able to get an abortion in Mississippi; with heavy restrictions in effect and the high penalties on physicians who violate the abortion ban, it is unlikely she would have found a doctor willing to perform a procedure.”
You might imagine how and if you could explain to these children that your concerns about freedom of speech were more important than their capacity to choose.
I disagree. There are millions of Americans who have diabetes because of poor diet choices. There are millions of American who have distorted views because they don't know how to evaluate the media consume. 2/3rds of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen https://theconversation.com/why-do-millions-of-americans-believe-the-2020-presidential-election-was-stolen-from-donald-trump-224016 - which was simply a lie and has been proven so multiple times in court. Including Fox 'News' paying out 787m dollars for knowingly spreading this lie (freedom of speech, even to lie but not freedom from the consequences of speech).
You yourself believed Trump to be a moderate on abortion who was somehow not responsible for ending Roe vs Wade. And that he was not linked to Project 2025. No doubt those interpretations were based on what you consumed. And I believe I have demonstrated conclusively that there is solid evidence that on abortion he is not a moderate, that he took ownership of the decision and celebrated it. And that he knows and is alignment with the architects of Project 2025.
My concern about Dems re: rights is that you hear Hillary Clinton day on national television that those who spread misinformation should be prosecuted. You hear Tim Walz say that the first amendment does not protect hate speech. Of course it does. As a lawyer you should know that the first amendment protects both of those things. This is the party who coerced Facebook into censoring Americans during Covid. These are just a handful of examples. I don’t see the same animus amongst republicans to censor and control information.
I looked through your sources and it strikes me that most of them are left leaning media outlets. The entire media leans heavily in favor of the democrats and heavily against Trump. These are media outlets that have promoted the Steel Dossier and Russiagate pandemonium. They killed the Hunter Biden laptop story that we now know isn’t “russian disinformation.”
I guess I have observed this happen so many times that I can no longer trust anything they tell me. That seems like a reasonable response to continuously being lied to.
And again - that propublica story about this mother who tragically died from sepsis was not a result of the abortion law in Georgia. They have exceptions for that exact situation. Clearly defined exceptions. You can read it in the law. I agree it’s awful but it isn’t a political talking point. I actually find it reprehensible that it’s being used as such. There’s a lot of nuance in there. We can’t know her previous health history. To just say she died because of an abortion ban is just simply not accurate.
Salon is another such publication that has made it their job to get democrats elected. These are not objective sources.
I favor Matt Taibbi. I think his reporting is near impeccable and he admits when he got something wrong. A green flag from my stand point.
I think Glenn Greenwald is fair and reports well on free speech issues and government corruption.
Im interested in reporters that report fairly.
I have watched our press turn into a vicious attack dog for the establishment.
They have not challenged Kamala on anything meaningful that I can tell. They have completely lost credibility and I’m not sure they can earn it back.
The courts are losing their credibility too. Now the media can say “Trump is a convicted felon” when really what happened was the court was used to neuter a political opponent. It’s reprehensible. You are telling me that creepy comments he has made are a more important factor than the fact that all around us our systems of law and Justice, our free press, our constitutional rights are being made a mockery of. We have a regime right now that is pushing for a nuclear conflict, full stop, rather than deescalating. We have a regime that installed a candidate with no voting process. And if you want to split hairs here - if Trump claimed the election was stolen….what the hell do you call what happened in 2016. Every media outlet, many democrats just simply decided Trump “isn’t my president.” They blamed it on everything but their inability to appeal to a large portion of the country which they conveniently labeled “deplorable” so as to not have to listen to them. This is part of what woke me the hell up to the depth of institutional dishonesty.
The republic is indeed being threatened but not by Trump. I don’t think he’s some kind of second coming. I don’t think he’s here to fight demons or liberate us. I don’t think he’s a particularly good person. But he’s made it this far. He has people I trust deeply around him - people that have given up much to tell the truth. To me he seems like a last ditch effort to break up the consolidation of power in Washington. He’s a disruption to business as usual. There is much I don’t agree with. I don’t feel like I need to defend every bizarre, gross, or mean comment he’s ever made, I feel like I’ve stated that repeatedly. Just because I would vote for a politician doesn’t mean I agree with everything they’ve ever said or done.
It’s possible we may never see eye to eye here and that’s fine with me. But from what I can see you are drinking from the same poisoned well of information that has brought us to the brink.
Re sources - I don't think your filter is nuanced enough. Sure Salon is progressive editorially that doesn't mean it's reporting of what Kelly said is inaccurate. It is widely reported elsewhere. Media across the free world accurately reports Trump as a sexual predator, a fraudster and a liar. Among other things. That's not anti-Trump. It is pro-reality.
Re 'Russiagate' - I wonder how nuanced your view is here too. The Mueller Report conclusively found that Russia was absolutely interfering in the election and that Trump's campaign had multiple meetings with them. "Collsuion" as a legal term is a very high bar and was unproven. Not exoneration. Unproven.
": Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.
While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/
Re the mother (one of two) who died in Georgia, where are you getting your info?
"According to ProPublica, Thurman became pregnant with twins unexpectedly in 2022 and faced roadblocks to receiving reproductive care due to the state's ban. She went to North Carolina for a medication abortion but experienced rare complications after taking the prescribed abortion pills.
Thurman became septic in the hospital due to excess tissue in her uterus that did not shed from her body, causing a serious infection. Thurman needed a dilation and curettage, or D&C, a procedure in which tissue is removed from inside the uterus. However, Georgia's ban considers a D&C a felony if performed outside of specific circumstances and could land doctors behind bars for up to 10 years.
Thurman's health deteriorated for 20 hours before doctors finally took her to surgery. By then, it was too late, ProPublica's reporting says. Her heart stopped on the table.
Thurman's death was "preventable," according to Georgia’s maternal mortality review committee, which said the hospital's delay in providing the D&C due to state law "had a large impact on her fatal outcome," ProPublica reports." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/09/20/amber-thurman-georgia-abortion-law-propublica-investigation/75291366007/
Re freedom of speech. As per Alex Jones' freedom to lie for money about Sandy Hook, the grieving parents were free to sue the lying bastard.
Hate speech in most countries means incitement to violence. In Myanmar false stories were spread online about the Rohingya people, who were massacred as a result. A genocide. Do you disagree that those who incite violence should be prosecuted? Do you think people posting things likely to incite violence (eg the Jews are murdering Christian children in ritual sacrifice, we must rise up and rid ourselves of this Satanic menace, by force, blood for blood") should be prevented from doing so in anyway?
Do you think a guy putting up a sign saying "Swimming hole, Alligator free" while knowing the water was full of alligators should be able to do so? Knowingly spreading misinformation entirely likely to cause harm?
What about the issue of the hateful, racist conspiracy theories being broadcast by a billionaire on the media platform they own? Due to his extreme wealth he is almost infinitely more free than others. By this definition.
This is a very illuminating read on the free speech issue. It is far from clear cut https://substack.com/home/post/p-149202158?source=queue
Re Tabibi and Greenwald. Both smart guys and great narrative weavers. Neither are accountable to editorial fact checking or have any obligation to provide balance. I know Tabibi less well. But Greenwald jumped the shark years ago and has become like a teenager who thinks his parents (progressives) are the worst while ignoring the rapist next door.
I asked for specific authoritarian measures by the Democrats. You gave two things they allegedly said. That's very weak evidence for a government in power. What have they DONE that is authoritarian in the last four years?
As for Trump - he is an actual authoritarian and Project 2025 is an authoritarian project (including ruling over women's bodies) https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/how-trumps-proposed-radical-expansion-of-executive-power-will-impact-our-freedoms
"In 2020, the Trump administration threatened to use force to quell protests, and actually did deploy federal agents and National Guard troops who arrested and used excessive force against protestors and journalists. If Trump secures a second term, this abuse of power is likely to recur and even escalate. Trump has already indicated that his administration would consider invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy the military to America’s cities — potentially targeting those with large BIPOC and immigrant communities — to suppress the right to protest. Trump has also indicated that his administration would attack online free expression by forcing media companies and online platforms to carry conservatives’ preferred speech.
As president, with federal law enforcement agencies under his control, Trump could carry out attacks on advocacy organizations and individuals he opposes. Indeed, on the campaign trail, Trump has praised violent crackdowns on campus protests, aligning with his previous attacks on academic freedom. In particular, he has threatened to deport student protestors who are not U.S. citizens, merging his attacks on free speech with his attacks on immigration. We also expect Trump to use his authority to further target media members and the freedom of the press to suppress negative stories about him or his administration.
Furthermore, Project 2025 has made clear that a second Trump administration intends to dismantle the already insufficient guardrails that prevent the president from abusing the executive branch’s power. The Supreme Court already removed one such guardrail in Trump v. United States, ruling that the president cannot be criminally prosecuted for “official acts,” including using the Justice Department for his personal and political bidding. Trump can use a politicized Justice Department and the vast array of federal agencies to attack voters, protestors, journalists, abortion care providers and patients, his political opponents and any others he perceives as “enemies.” Even now, Trump allies in Congress are trying to use their investigative tools to chill free speech, including targeting civil society organizations and activists engaged in protected advocacy, such as opposing the war in Gaza or supporting LGBTQ rights.
The dangers of the federal government targeting its opponents and vulnerable populations are multiplied by mass surveillance mechanisms that the ACLU has long fought to constrain. A second Trump administration could leverage surveillance programs such as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which authorizes the collection of communications between U.S. persons and people outside the United States, and which Congress has dangerously expanded to allow the government to search Americans’ private communications and information without a warrant and without notice.
Why It Matters: By punishing political enemies and stifling protest and dissent, a second Trump administration would break many of the checks and balances on the executive branch, and undermine the foundations of a functioning democracy. A second Trump administration will also pose a threat to our historic American tradition of robust, open political competition marked by spirited dissent and the foundational notion that the people have the final say."
To put some hypothetical freedom of speech issue higher up the totem pole than freedom of protest, women's right to choose (this is the impact of Trump's work https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/64-000-pregnancies-caused-by-rape-have-occurred-in-states-with-a-total-abortion-ban-new-study-estimates/ if you vote for him you are culpable for the suffering of future victims), than the importance of having someone sane, kind, doesn't sexually objectify their child, I think you have some damage to your sense of priority quite honestly.
Half the nation of Germany were in moral error in 1932. And chose very badly. To their long term detriment.
Same for the US in 2024. ‘Yeah, she's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father . . I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her.".’” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-ivanka-trump-creepiest-most-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html
I honestly think anyone who can read that and still think Trump is the right man to lead the country is in some kind of denial, trauma bond or delusion.
I am so thrilled to be having this conversation. Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply — not only were you gracious, but you also added a lot to the discussion and gave me much to think about.
I find myself straddling two worlds (or many); basically, my jeans are splitting LOL.
I agree with you that it has been totally illuminating to listen to people like the Weinsteins and others on that circuit (I haven't really paid close attention to Tulsi; maybe I should?). It's hard to listen to those in-depth interviews and not come away with some new insights that are glaringly absent from the broader conversation (I just looked at my list of 1,322 uncatalogued "notes" from such interviews — the day I get around to sorting those will feel like a national holiday — and saw the comment, from Weinstein (oh wait, it was Eric - I don't really know them that well, but have listened to both) that I found compelling enough to take down: "We are mistaking a redistribution of empathy for an expansion of empathy."
Things like that. You just don't get stuff like that in the broader conversation, and it just feels obviously true. I have written about this a bit: empathy, in my view, is like the feeling a parent (or I'll speak for myself) has when they have only one child and wonders how it's possible that there could possibly be enough love for the second child when you're pretty much exploding with love for the first. And then the second child comes, and you're like - oh, wait! it wasn't that the love had to be shared, it was that the quantity of available love simply doubled." Meaning that the way we view resources like empathy - withholding it from some in the name of showering it upon others - makes no sense.
Anyway, that's totally beside the point of our discussion. It's late and I am procrastinating dinner cleanup. I won't get into the weeds of the policy stuff you brought up at the moment, because I still have plenty of questions and can't quite muster the cognitive fortitude, but I didn't want to delay replying and expressing my appreciation for the dialogue. :)