troph

he's not an odious piece of shit or a pussy grabber to them. On the way to a trailhead near the continental divide, we drove through the town of Meredith, CO last weekend, population 25 maybe? Cletus was sitting outside his trailer with his dog and with no shirt on, eating something. He looked like the poster child (but an adult) for fetal alcohol syndrome. The place was a trash pile. I felt bad for his dog. The man was filthy dirty. Next door and set back a bit further was an older man. He had his shirt on, but he sat under a "covered porch" consisting of a tarp tied to the mobile home, this old man was sitting there doing nothing. Communities like these are dead, no hope, no opportunity and frankly there are less extreme examples of communities with no hope, but the number of white Americans living in poverty is shockingly high at 22 million according to my google search and when they hear someone say it's the illegals fault and that black president's fault, and the woke mob, and antifa, and America is horrible and I will make it great again for you Cletus and unnamed old guy sitting there, they eat that shit up.

we are probably seeing it fairly similarly when you put your analytical hat on and take off your rhetoric hat. I think white queer folk are less at risk of being rounded up than brown folk, because if history is any teacher, the external threat is what has led US presidents to take such awful action. Illegal immigration is the justification. We already limit our travel to other red states. The Keys would be my ideal US vacation getaway along with the mountain states. We haven't been to Florida in years and I'm deeply conflicted about it. As of right now, we are working from Colorado for a month. We have a trip planed to Oregon and Washington for Thanksgiving, but traveling to a red state? yeah, nah. If we leave Texas because of red politics, we will not return to a red state for any reason, except to bury my mom.

same with Pete, no way he could win (and from the voting bloc that might give y'all a run for your money). hey girl hey!

that's the executive order or legislation route. I think the exec order is under 5% likelihood, I think the MAGA controlled WH / Congress legislative route is much, much higher and will come in the form of all sorts of regulations including but not limited to no right to health care, outlaw queer/gay sex, etc. basically returning to the olden times. I do not think camps by legislation are likely, but jail time for having gay sex? possibly.

I appreciate your response, but to be clear I'm trying not to evaluate through rhetoric but through systematic analysis to truly get to the risk profile here. This is my current risk assessment: Control of Congress immunity from criminal prosecution does not mean the act is lawful and cannot be stopped, it only means he can't be prosecuted. I think for the worst case scenario, MAGA would have to have control of the WH and both houses of Congress and pass a law that says trans people should be eradicated. Then he is executing a law and there is no ability to stop it other than through a SCOTUS ruling which I would give a very low probability of receiving. Next to civil violence, this to me is the risk to watch for, full MAGA control over the WH and Congress. If that happens, better have a go bag and be ready to flee the country. Executive Orders - WWII-Style Camps? Now I guess the MAGA POTUS could sign an executive order that trans people are a threat and should be exterminated and then we are all rounded up. Here I actually think immigrants and citizens of Hispanic descent are more at risk. I think Japanese camps during WWII are the example to be most concerned about and that was during a war and I think the only external war like threat MAGA POTUS can come up with is illegal immigration. So I think in that respect, trans people are "safer" than brown people. wow. I think there is some risk, but I do think being rounded up under an Executive Order is going to be very difficult for a MAGA POTUS to do. SCOTUS - Outlaw Existence vs. Two State(s) Solution I do think as strange as this sounds, the Dobbs decision provides a way out and shows that SCOTUS acknowledges we have a two state system - federal and states, allowing therefore blue and red states. And in that sense, fleeing to a blue state can provide tremendous protection. I also think SCOTUS would be hard pressed to find any basis for the eradication of a group of people in the Constitution. What they will do is find that LGBTQ people have no protected rights under the Constitution, again leaving it up to the blue and red states to decide if they want to be a red state and go to heaven (ban LGBTQ people) or party in hell with the rest of us in the blue states (protect LGBTQ people). Basically, I don't see how SCOTUS finds federalism (state and federal power co-existing) unconstitutional. That's what it would take to disallow blue states to protect others. If your trying to triage this, and this sounds awful but it is what it is, Dobbs is a bad decision and the future is easy to see - guaranteed rights to contraception, interracial marriage, gay marriage, LGBTQ sex gone - but those decisions will require additional state action (red states) to effectuate the ban on queer folk. Fleeing to a blue state avoids the harms of Dobbs. I FULLY acknowledge that's a shit sandwich for many, poor, stuck by circumstances, etc. and frankly for the next 4-5 years that's us. But if you're trying to manage the situation, not unlike a legal dispute, what keeps me up at night for my clients is no way out, no options, a difficult option is a solution and so here, I see a way out. Civil Violence I think the likelihood of a traditional civil war is nil. I think the federal government is too strong to allow for a sustained insurrection or for any succession. I do think there can and probably will be more skirmishes between militia types and the government. I also think citizen on citizen violence is already here and it will increase. I think MAGA violence against LGBTQ and POC (black Americans and people of Hispanic decent) is coming. And in that sense, I do believe there is a high likelihood of a non-traditional civil war where people die at the hands of their neighbors. Conclusion In the end, I think the most likely outcome is the two state(s) solution. I think executive orders and new federal laws designed to eradicate people groups within the citizenry is actually a low risk but it should be monitored closely. I do think people of Hispanic descent have a special risk if illegal immigration is deemed a war by a MAGA POTUS. I think there is a very strong likelihood that fleeing to a blue state will be strong protection against government intrusion but I do think that civil violence will be a risk in most states.

btw the idea that Trump is Biden's, Hillary's or the liberals fault is fucking laughable. It's the Christians and the monied Republicans fault. he is a VERY compelling and competitive candidate not because of anything the liberals do or don't do but because he is a natural authoritarian strong man who is taking advantage of what was available on the conservative side of our Country.

don't forget to post it on the dark brandon twitter account!

he's done very well post debate so far. Wafflehouse that night, NC campaign stop next day, rebuttal to SCOTUS, so there is a sliver of hope. Grandpa Joe is a winning strategy, senile Granpa Joe not so much.

deal, though you might have to come to the mountains, we wouldn't be in Denver.

ok we see it the same. I think the risk are: 1. Red states are gone, huge risks. 2. Blue states are probably ok (SCOTUS can't outlaw us), but sweep of Congress/WH by MAGA makes it a risk at that time. 3. Violence anywhere is a risk (everything from Pulse style to civil war style (maga vs. others, not people vs. government).

what do you think is the chance of having to vacate the country? I actually see it as pretty unlikely? yes, CO is our bug out state when the kids are done with HS. I'll get residency in CO before then if I absolutely have to.

@Js1 what's y'alls current thinking? We are trying to stay in Texas for at least 4 more years. Then we have options. We hope the infection doesn't spread beyond red states, we are hoping the blue states will be allowed to have state and local laws that protect us, give us access to healthcare, abortion (don't need it), right to marry, etc. etc. I really don't think a full 50 state infection is likely. I don't think the feds are going to tell adults what they can and can't do and even before Obergefell states were recognizing same sex marriages, etc. So my thinking is the worst case scenerio from a legal perspective is that. Live in a blue state, you're ok. I'm not so sure the infection goes to all 50 states through a heavy federal government legislative approach. I can't see SCOTUS saying the constitution prohibits same sex marriage etc. I can't see SCOTUS saying trans people have no right to be alive. BUT I do see SCOTUS saying LGBTQ folk have no protected rights, again, back to a blue state should be ok. I guess the risk is federal legislation outlawing LGBTQ existence - marriage not allowed, healthcare not allowed, etc. etc. I think the watch point here is POTUS + House of Reps + Senate turns red, GTFO potentially. I see this as relatively remote though. What's your take? and if federal legislation forcing red state ideology on blue states happen, what countries are you looking at? None of this takes into account the likely violence that will increase, but then living in a blue state in the right part of that state could inoculate us from that violence. Sucks but going back into the public closet by not showing your spouse affection in public or being careful how you refer to them would suuuuuuck.

This is true except certain evidence of acts taken in an official capacity will be ruled inadmissible to prove the checks written while president were unofficial. it’s the new evidentiary rules that are the insidious problem not the framework of what is official and what is not. the intersection of Roberts opinion and Barrett’s concurring opinion highlight the issue. this should be a slam dunk, of course it’s unofficial conduct but the question is what evidence is admissible to prove it. Some evidence is going to get kicked out potentially making the case hard to prove. I think after appeals we may end up with a SCOTUS requirement for a new trial if not sooner, though I’d love to see the TC and COA force SCOTUS to twist more logic to get there.

If ever there was a basis for judicial impeachment? It’s there for a reason.

No the money probably is the easiest though not easy. A near billion dollar campaign in 120 days is never easy. The analogy is more like hey sark you’re switching teams, coaching Oregon against Ohio State in two weeks. Not sure if the coaching staff at Oregon will coach with you, not sure if the players are gonna stay, not sure if the film and analysts will help you. Good luck!

Stormy Daniels interviewed by Maddow tonight, holy shit they replayed the graphic testimony. Of course the only reason for the graphic testimony was because the defense claimed no sex happened so no payment happened. So of course she had to go deet by deet. She described his skin and how she was used to hot bodies and she had never felt a fat man’s skin on her body. How she had to wipe his cum off her leg. Holy shit.

I’m not sure I understand your thoughts here.

If her polling is strong enough and she can truly succeed to the campaign apparatus, donors, experts, intel, executives then maybe this is the right answer. There is no other option though.

this is why it's Biden no matter what. I can't believe this isn't understood. the party isn't running for office, a candidate is and he has his or her own enterprise - funders, staffers, key executives, operatives, intel, data, etc. etc. Yes the parties help their candidates and there are organizations through out the country that try to help but in the end, the candidate has his or her own apparatus and that isn't just seamlessly handed off with 4 months to go. it would be an epic disaster behind the scenes not to mention any sort of infighting seen publicly.

numbers are too small and our power is too little. trans people, queer people, poor people, POC, certain environmental activists, but no mission from God or anything.

I tend to enjoy low key celebrations, I think we are opting out all together. i'll go fishing or we will go hiking. no cell coverage. enjoy our dog and fish, they are where it's at. I thought the same.

why was your debate performance so bad President Biden? You know George, I've still got it all there, just look at my record (say three things), but I'll tell ya, that night, I couldn't believe what I was watching. Donald Trump - a convicted felon - was standing right there lying a mile a minute. I sat there and thought how on God's green earth can I tell the American people this guy is a liar on each and every point in a 60 second rebuttal? and I fumbled the ball. Look, I'm an old guy, I have a stutter, but I work out, I ride my bike and yeah, it was silly but I still think I could whoop his butt in golf, but the fact is I was feeling pretty crappy, it wasn't COVID but I was definitely sick and feeling poorly, that certainly had an impact but here's the deal, I was in shock with all the lies he was telling us and the American people should be too.

not that it's going to do much (the record is there) but I'm strongly considering going 100% dark on social media. deactivating and deleting my insta/fb accounts. I really am only using fb for a few groups and it's been a long while since I posted political stuff on fb - like years. but still having a digital footprint seems like a terrible idea these days.

I'm not convinced it's fait accompli.