Donald Trump 2020

[Michael Knight 13187]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

I couldn’t disagree more. Your self-righteous strategy leads only to more unnecessary divisiveness. 

Trumpism is a cult but there are Trump voters who were not and are not Trump cultists. And I’m any event people leave cults all the fucking time. You know what works with those people? Sympathy, forgiveness, welcoming, and maybe a very little gentle judgment. 

Anyone who is still a Trump vote is and always will be a cultist. Like what the fuck more do you think they would need?

[texas08 1599]

BunkerBitch is literally fencing the White House so that come November/January it’s a little tougher to drag him out.

We’ll see a full blown concrete wall (paid by Mexico) go up later this year (with some barbed electrical wire).

#bunkerbitch

[gmr548 16681]

Trump supporters are the opposite of a silent majority. They are a vocal minority.

Fight with them, try to kill em with kindness, do whatever you want. The far more important thing is making sure the actual majority - people that flatly disapprove of him and the GOP - turnout.

[Brisketexan 106628]

3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I couldn’t disagree more. Your self-righteous strategy leads only to more unnecessary divisiveness. 

Trumpism is a cult but there are Trump voters who were not and are not Trump cultists. And in any event, people leave cults all the fucking time. You know what works with those people? Sympathy, forgiveness, welcoming, and maybe a very little gentle judgment. 

How about we make this deal -- you deal with the 2-3% of Trump cultists remaining who may defect.

I'll stick with my strategy to deal with the remaining 97-98% who will never defect.

[BrickHorn 18426]

Just now, Michael Knight said:

Anyone who is still a Trump vote is and always will be a cultist.

You go with that. It’ll make you feel less guilty for not trying. I’ll keep working on the problem and maybe have a few more stories of conversion to share. 

[BrickHorn 18426]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

How about we make this deal -- you deal with the 2-3% of Trump cultists remaining who may defect.

I'll stick with my strategy to deal with the remaining 97-98% who will never defect.

Have fun pointlessly wagging your finger at people. That’s really fucking helpful.

[Brisketexan 106628]

3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Have fun pointlessly wagging your finger at people. That’s really fucking helpful.

These people used to be hiding under rocks.  They didn't poison society at large.  They need to go back there.  I don't care how we get them back there, so long as it's legal.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Brisketexan

[Eskimohorn 5675]

In five years your country will be run by a Putin installed white supremacist TV game show host that ran on a campaign of building a Mexican border wall and banning Muslims. He will be impeached for betraying the country, trying to coerce a foreign country into re-election assistance, he will be acquitted by the Senate. Your economy will surpass Great Depression unemployment levels.  The #1 cause of death will be a foreign born respiratory illness killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in the first year.  The national debt will skyrocket as the government hands out trillions to the wealthy as they buy back stocks to inflate the stock market.  Migrants searching for a better life will be placed in military camps, their infant children will be kidnapped by government officials, and sometimes lost.  Police forces will commit race based extrajudicial murders sparking nationwide civil unrest, property will be destroyed, cities will burn. The military will be deployed to go on the offensive against peacefully protesting Americans in the nation’s capital and the president will suggest that Americans experiment with ingesting household disinfectants.  
 
Now tell me you could see that coming in June of 2015. 

I predicted a disaster of epic proportions in 2016

[gmr548 16681]

Yea, thats a very common sentiment and the reason voter turnout in the US is so shitty.  Doesn't do a lot of good to vote in hard red or blue states in a national election with winner take all, so people just sit it out.   States should move to proportional disbursement of electors.  Voter turnout would increase, and candidates wouldn't get to rely on focusing on swing states to win elections.  They might have to actually try to appeal to a broader portion of the country and get us off this fucking death wobble of swinging harder and harder left and right on each election.

Proportinal distribution doesn't change that much. Most congressional districts are strongly partisan one way or the other. All it'd really do is make the map look funny, and a higher percentage of Americans that anyone realizes would just think the GOP wins every election cause there's a bunch of red on the new map.

 

If only there were some way to make sure everyone's vote counted equally regardless of geography. Too bad no one's ever thought of such wizardry.

 

[Michael Knight 13187]

One thing that might give someone hope is that Trump only has influence so long as he has power. No one likes him or respects him, he has 0 charisma and has shown to be a backstabbing piece of shit and an incompetent. If hes voted out no one will support an attempt to remain in power because by definition he has no more power. You think Mitch McConnell is gonna show loyalty to someone who can't help him?

[TXSG8R 3362]

2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Proportinal distribution doesn't change that much. Most congressional districts are strongly partisan one way or the other. All it'd really do is make the map look funny, and a higher percentage of Americans that anyone realizes would just think the GOP wins every election cause there's a bunch of red on the new map.

 

If only there were some way to make sure everyone's vote counted equally regardless of geography. Too bad no one's ever thought of such wizardry.

 

Talking proportional disbursement of electors for the electoral college.  If Texas is 60/40 republican in a vote, the dem candidate would get 15 electors instead of 0.  By bumping it to 59/41, the dem would get 16 (assuming they round up/down).  That is an incentive for more voters to turn out on both sides, and forces candidates to appeal to a broader portion of the electorate.  I think the chances of getting rid of the EC is about 0, so this is a decent compromise.  

[Huckleberry 34407]

Just now, TXSG8R said:

Talking proportional disbursement of electors for the electoral college.  If Texas is 60/40 republican in a vote, the dem candidate would get 15 electors instead of 0.  By bumping it to 59/41, the dem would get 16 (assuming they round up/down).  That is an incentive for more voters to turn out on both sides, and forces candidates to appeal to a broader portion of the electorate.  I think the chances of getting rid of the EC is about 0, so this is a decent compromise.  

That would never be agreed upon. I still think the best bet is 50% of a State's electors to the winner and the other 50% proportional. Essentially mimicking the two chambers of Congress.

[BrickHorn 18426]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

These people used to be hiding under rocks.  They didn't poison society at large.  They need to go back there.  I don't care how we get them back there, so long as it's legal.

You’re a litigator. Try persuading people. I appreciate your posting style, but make no mistake: you preach to the choir. You’re a master of riling up the emotions of those who already agree with us. But you leave no room to accept defectors; you shun them from the get-go. No wonder you view conversion as a lost cause. You hijack the possibility that you personally would ever convert someone. You’re too busy driving a wedge to ever open the tent. Or some other mixed metaphor. 

I’m not saying excuse Trump or his voters. I’m saying mix it up. Preach, but also engage. Call bullshit, but focus on common ground. 

[TXSG8R 3362]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

That would never be agreed upon. I still think the best bet is 50% of a State's electors to the winner and the other 50% proportional. Essentially mimicking the two chambers of Congress.

Im fine with that, anything is better than winner take all.  

[Pescado_Rojo 19559]

46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I look more like Gilbert Gottfried, but I sound more like Dennis Haysbert.  Yes, it's jarring.

A Mexican Al Gore with a voice that's a mix of Dennis Haysbert and Slim Pickens 

[Eastwood 4394]

9 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

One thing that might give someone hope is that Trump only has influence so long as he has power. No one likes him or respects him, he has 0 charisma and has shown to be a backstabbing piece of shit and an incompetent. If hes voted out no one will support an attempt to remain in power because by definition he has no more power. You think Mitch McConnell is gonna show loyalty to someone who can't help him?

I think Trump makes it even easier for Republicans by publicly blaming the Republicans and the people for not re-electing him. He'll finally lash out at the constituents he had to pretend to love for 6 years.

[Nope 3151]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Except with real consequences.  Imagine Survivor, except you're really stranded on an island with no food or water, there are fucking pirates attacking us and there's fucking tigers on land and sharks in the water.  This show sucks.  People are dying on it.

And the host is constantly reminding you that some of those pirates and tigers are fine individuals.

[Ted Lange 16356]

Dipshit GOP 'necks reaction to the military deploying 60 men a 2 Humvees and a helicopter to PRIVATE land in Bastrop.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20160923/bastrop-critics-on-armys-jade-helm-training-come-and-fake-it

 

 

 

“It’s the same thing that happened in Nazi Germany. You get the people used to the troops on the street, the appearance of uniformed troops and the militarization of the police,” said Bob Wells, a Bastrop resident, after the meeting. “They’re gathering intelligence. That’s what they’re doing. And they’re moving logistics in place for martial law. That’s my feeling."

 

Would love to hear Bob's thought on Trump calling up the 1000s of members of the US Military to be potentially deployed on public land.  

[Horn Dogg 4277]

51 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

And Kobe Dies

And Texas still hasn’t won the big 12 in football since 2009.

[plimon 190]

11 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

A Mexican Al Gore with a voice that's a mix of Dennis Haysbert and Slim Pickens 

I was hoping for a Cheech Marín  type.

[Brisketexan 106628]

18 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

You’re a litigator. Try persuading people. I appreciate your posting style, but make no mistake: you preach to the choir. You’re a master of riling up the emotions of those who already agree with us. But you leave no room to accept defectors; you shun them from the get-go. No wonder you view conversion as a lost cause. You hijack the possibility that you personally would ever convert someone. You’re too busy driving a wedge to ever open the tent. Or some other mixed metaphor. 

I’m not saying excuse Trump or his voters. I’m saying mix it up. Preach, but also engage. Call bullshit, but focus on common ground. 

I have done so.  There are a handful of people I am still working (including some prominent GOP figures - seriously, the conversations we have had in private are pretty gruesome).

But I've also learned to read a judicial panel.  And I've sat on several governing bodies of organizations.  I know that you cannot always get everyone on your side.  So, figure out who opposes you, and wall them off the best you can.  Keep that judge from swaying the rest of the panel.  Keep the dissenter from getting any other votes to come over to his side.  Marginalize them.  Some stupid is unfixable, so you quarantine it.

We've always had stupid, hateful pieces of shit, and we always will.  If you can save a few souls, great.  But the high-percentage play is to quarantine them.  

12 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

A Mexican Al Gore with a voice that's a mix of Dennis Haysbert and Slim Pickens 

The accuracy of this pisses me off.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3555]

5 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Dipshit GOP 'necks reaction to the military deploying 60 men a 2 Humvees and a helicopter to PRIVATE land in Bastrop.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20160923/bastrop-critics-on-armys-jade-helm-training-come-and-fake-it

 

 

 

“It’s the same thing that happened in Nazi Germany. You get the people used to the troops on the street, the appearance of uniformed troops and the militarization of the police,” said Bob Wells, a Bastrop resident, after the meeting. “They’re gathering intelligence. That’s what they’re doing. And they’re moving logistics in place for martial law. That’s my feeling."

 

Would love to hear Bob's thought on Trump calling up the 1000s of members of the US Military to be potentially deployed on public land.  

Dont' forget about this......The Drug Enforcement Administration has been granted sweeping new authority to “conduct covert surveillance” and collect intelligence on people participating in protests over the police killing of George Floyd

[jimmyjazz 46977]

35 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I’m not saying excuse Trump or his voters. I’m saying mix it up. Preach, but also engage. Call bullshit, but focus on common ground. 

This "conversion" argument ignores a few small groups that might actually move the needle.  One is the military.  The other is certain Christian denominations.  

A lot of brass and even rank and file military personnel were surprised by General Mattis' words, along with the subsequent US Army statement on official letterhead.  That's a real thing.  The Episcopalians are really pissed about the Bible photo-op, too.  

What is being missed isn't that the military or the non-evangelical Christians need to switch sides and pull the "D" lever.  All that has to happen is for the disgust to be pervasive enough that some -- 10%?  20%? -- stay home on election day.

Combine that effect with a <fingers crossed> successful effort to get the urban and youth vote out to the polls, and there is a Biden landslide in the making.  It won't be easy, but those who oppose Trump need to stop focusing on the obvious fact that 90% of his 2016 vote will never consider Biden.  Big fucking revelation.  We don't need to be scolded over and over again as if we don't see reality.  What some people need to do is see the reality that some conservatives might just lose the motivation to vote, and that could be huge.

But, carry on.  Ledge, scotch, yada yada yada.

Edited June 4, 2020 by jimmyjazz

[BrickHorn 18426]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

as people awaken to the fact that they've been misled and behaved poorly and supported an actual orange shitstain, we should welcome them back to real society from the cult with open arms, imo.

Agreed. It’s just good psychology and public policy. People make mistakes. Those who learn from those mistakes are less likely to repeat them. When someone on the other side finds the courage to admit the error of their ways, that is an opportunity to welcome a new ally to your cause. It might feel good to reject them out of some punitive revenge impulse. But doing so would be counterproductive.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

4 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

You're right in a way.  Jimmy James is way off on his prediction and Trumpers aren't going to all of a sudden reject white supremacy because the vast majority of them have been rejecting it their entire lives.  This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better no matter how the election goes.   The Trump movement isn't a pro-Trump movement.  He is the medium, not the message.   The Trump movement is a reject the radical leftness of the Democrat Party movement.  It is only pro-Trump in the sense that Trump is the only "Republican" with the balls to sling the shit back at the media and the Democratic establishment (toe-mate-toe, toe-mot-toe) instead of trying to placate them.  We want someone to fight the Democrat agenda, not someone who will cut the least shittiest deal with them.  And I can only sado-masochistically imagine what the collective mental sanity of the left will be if Trump gets re-elected. 

[Ted Lange 16356]

TED on Jade Helm

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cruz-sympathizes-jade-helm-15-conspiracy-theorists

 

“My office has reached out to the Pentagon to inquire about this exercise,” Cruz, a Texas senator, told Bloomberg at the South Carolina Republican Party’s annual convention. “We are assured it is a military training exercise. I have no reason to doubt those assurances, but I understand the reason for concern and uncertainty, because when the federal government has not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy in this administration, the natural consequence is that many citizens don’t trust what it is saying.”

 

 

 

 

[BrickHorn 18426]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What is being missed isn't that the military or the non-evangelical Christians need to switch sides and pull the "D" lever.  All that has to happen is for the disgust to be pervasive enough that some -- 10%?  20%? -- stay home on election day.

Great. Like almost any political issue, people fall on a spectrum. Some 2016 Trump voters may never vote Biden. Focus on discouraging them from voting Trump. But the same arguments, persuasively made, may convert other 2016 Trump voters to cast a ballot for Dems in 2020. Both are helpful. But don’t force the more willing converts to the sideline when they’re telling you they want in the game on your side.

[F250 29176]

16 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I wish but these Trumpers aren’t going anywhere and they’re not going to all of a sudden reject white supremacy.  The challenges we’re looking at are going to take a generation to resolve, if we’re lucky.

From a scene in Glory which applies to MAGA.

[TXSG8R 3362]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This "conversion" argument ignores a few small groups that might actually move the needle.  One is the military.  The other is certain Christian denominations.  

A lot of brass and even rank and file military personnel were surprised by General Mattis' words, along with the subsequent US Army statement on official letterhead.  That's a real thing.  The Episcopalians are really pissed about the Bible photo-op, too.  

What is being missed isn't that the military or the non-evangelical Christians need to switch sides and pull the "D" lever.  All that has to happen is for the disgust to be pervasive enough that some -- 10%?  20%? -- stay home on election day.

Combine that effect with a <fingers crossed> successful effort to get the urban and youth vote out to the polls, and there is a Biden landslide in the making.  It won't be easy, but those who oppose Trump need to stop focusing on the obvious fact that 90% of his 2016 vote will never consider Biden.  Big fucking revelation.  We don't need to be scolded over and over again as if we don't see reality.  What some people need to do is see the reality that some conservatives might just lose the motivation to vote, and that could be huge.

But, carry on.  Ledge, scotch, yada yada yada.

My experience, military voters lean R because of the obvious benefits to the defense budget and ultimately their paycheck, but its a lean, and it can certainly be overcome by other factors.  There's also the complication of legal residence and having to register to vote, and vote with, mail in ballots.  There's a substantial amount that don't think its worth the effort.  The younger the soldier, the higher that percentage is.  At the end of the day, there are roughly 2 million service members, and only 1.3 million of that are active duty.  I know that doesn't include extended families that will also lean harder R due to their family members, but I dont think its some massive voting block in the R pocket once you water it down through various states and the impacts of the electoral college.  I believe most of the states with the highest enlistment numbers are red anyway.  

[LCHorn 2749]

2 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

My experience, military voters lean R because of the obvious benefits to the defense budget and ultimately their paycheck, but its a lean, and it can certainly be overcome by other factors.  There's also the complication of legal residence and having to register to vote, and vote with, mail in ballots.  There's a substantial amount that don't think its worth the effort.  The younger the soldier, the higher that percentage is.  At the end of the day, there are roughly 2 million service members, and only 1.3 million of that are active duty.  I know that doesn't include extended families that will also lean harder R due to their family members, but I dont think its some massive voting block in the R pocket once you water it down through various states and the impacts of the electoral college.  I believe most of the states with the highest enlistment numbers are red anyway.  

All I know is that when I was in Iraq I was disappointed to get no takers when I was passing out my "Hillary2008" t-shirts.  

 

In all seriousness, most of the military leans R because they come from working class parents who vote R.  I think veteran Marines care (or know) who Mattis is a great deal more than active duty, who just want to work their 7 hours and then go play Fortnite in the barracks. 

[cactusflinthead 27626]

Full text 

Hello Charlie,

I am a pediatric cancer doctor and I study communication and ethical decision making in medicine. Yesterday, I realized that a central concept from my field can help to explain why so many appear to accept the president's lies: mutual pretense. The president has a relationship with his base in which he lies, he knows he lies, they know he lies, but none of them acknowledge the lie, because the lie provides them with stability and comfort. Recognizing mutual pretense matters, because attempts to shine light on the deception often lead to resentment towards the person shining the light. 

Mutual pretense was first discovered by Glaser and Strauss, two anthropologists who observed conversations between doctors and patients with cancer in the the VA in the 1960s.(Their first paper showed a breathtaking lack of bedside manner - see attached) In the 1970s, Myra Bluebond-Langner found the same thing in a pediatric cancer ward. (see her book, "The Private Worlds of Dying Children") For some parents and children, this mutual pretense was central to their relationship. It allowed each of them to protect the other and avoid a difficult truth. Most importantly, attempts to force the families to address hard truths often backfired on the physician, leading to decreased trust and greater frustration. I have known about this literature for years, but a recent encounter with a loved one suggested that a similar phenomenon is happening with some of the president's most fervent supporters.

Last week, I was talking with a loved one about COVID-19 and the real challenges we face as a country. As she laid out hopeful statements (hydroxychloroquine will prevent the disease, we will have a vaccine in the next few months, scientists will find a preventive medication soon), I continued to highlight the impediments to each of these hopes (hydroxychloroquine is a dud, vaccines take a long time to develop and often fail, preventive medication for 100 million people is hard to imagine). I also explained that the president is lying and failing to show leadership. My loved one did not agree (to say the least). After arguing back and forth for a few minutes, she raised her voice and nearly yelled, "Don't you think I know how bad things are? Don't you think I understand that we have a lot of problems? Don't you think I know all of this? I can't focus on these negatives all the time because I have to live somehow." 

Then it struck me - she knows the same things I know. She knows that that we are in a tough spot. She knows that hydroxycloroquine probably won't work. She knows that preventive medicine is probably a fantasy for the general population. She knows that the president is not being honest with her - but she accepts this deception because it helps her to cope. When I forced her to acknowledge these truths, her faith in the president did not waiver. Her relationship with me, however, was strained. 

If many of the president's faithful maintain mutual pretense with him, then how do we address his lies? While highlighting the falsehoods can help those willing to be convinced, this might actually drive the president's base closer to him. Perhaps the answer is framing the difficult news as reason for hope. Rather than focusing on the failure of hydroxychloroquine, focus on the multiple clinical trials that are a real source of hope. Instead of saying, "The president is lying about hydroxychloroquine," perhaps we can say, "I really wish the president would not focus on hydroxychloroquine, because it is distracting from other really promising clinical trials." We can frame his lie as an assault on a greater hope, a hope that acknowledges the harsh reality but promises to push toward better days. We never would have made it to the moon if we didn't realize how hard it would be. This approach might allow individuals to re-calibrate their goals and hopes. Whether this works is an empirical question, but nothing else has helped... Maybe it's worth a shot.

Thanks for your time.

Best,
Bryan Sisk, MD, MSCI

[DDD Dad 14571]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I look more like Gilbert Gottfried, but I sound more like Dennis Haysbert.  Yes, it's jarring.

 

1 hour ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

A Mexican Al Gore with a voice that's a mix of Dennis Haysbert and Slim Pickens 

Mexican Al Gore is pretty spot on.  But I'd say you sound like an intelligent Jay Sekulow.

[DDD Dad 14571]

54 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Dont' forget about this......The Drug Enforcement Administration has been granted sweeping new authority to “conduct covert surveillance” and collect intelligence on people participating in protests over the police killing of George Floyd

Can someone explain to me how the DEA would have any jurisdiction to investigate or "collect intelligence on" political protests?

Edited June 4, 2020 by DDD Dad

[Brisketexan 106628]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Can someone explain to me how the DEA would have any jurisdiction to investigate or "collect intelligence on" political protests?

Doesn't that sound like a good question for folks who are concerned about government overreach and control/abuses against its citizens to ask?  Hmmmm.....where are all those folks who just a week ago were strapping on heavy-duty firearms, entering state capitols, and demanding answers about just that?  I'm curious.  They must not have update Googlemaps on their phones or something.

[Irieguy 1059]

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

Which is why you welcome them with open arms and bond over your newfound common ground. Avoid “told you so” beyond gentle ribbing and don’t relitigate old liberal causes that pushed them to Trump in the first place. This isn’t the time to force Bernie or Hillary or pro-choice or gun control on new converts. Just welcome them to the right side of history, help confirm the wisdom of their decision, and let time and regret erode their old views to whatever extent is possible. 

Whatever. As soon as I figured out the Republican Party was full of shit(when they tried calling me back to Active duty in 2006), I didn’t need kid gloves. I guess it’s fine what you are saying but really seems unnecessary. 

[Red Five 41596]

12 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

Mexican Al Gore is pretty spot on.  

El Gore?

[Pancho 46054]

 

[henrygandorf 29221]

8 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Full text 

Hello Charlie,

I am a pediatric cancer doctor and I study communication and ethical decision making in medicine. Yesterday, I realized that a central concept from my field can help to explain why so many appear to accept the president's lies: mutual pretense. The president has a relationship with his base in which he lies, he knows he lies, they know he lies, but none of them acknowledge the lie, because the lie provides them with stability and comfort. Recognizing mutual pretense matters, because attempts to shine light on the deception often lead to resentment towards the person shining the light. 

Mutual pretense was first discovered by Glaser and Strauss, two anthropologists who observed conversations between doctors and patients with cancer in the the VA in the 1960s.(Their first paper showed a breathtaking lack of bedside manner - see attached) In the 1970s, Myra Bluebond-Langner found the same thing in a pediatric cancer ward. (see her book, "The Private Worlds of Dying Children") For some parents and children, this mutual pretense was central to their relationship. It allowed each of them to protect the other and avoid a difficult truth. Most importantly, attempts to force the families to address hard truths often backfired on the physician, leading to decreased trust and greater frustration. I have known about this literature for years, but a recent encounter with a loved one suggested that a similar phenomenon is happening with some of the president's most fervent supporters.

Last week, I was talking with a loved one about COVID-19 and the real challenges we face as a country. As she laid out hopeful statements (hydroxychloroquine will prevent the disease, we will have a vaccine in the next few months, scientists will find a preventive medication soon), I continued to highlight the impediments to each of these hopes (hydroxychloroquine is a dud, vaccines take a long time to develop and often fail, preventive medication for 100 million people is hard to imagine). I also explained that the president is lying and failing to show leadership. My loved one did not agree (to say the least). After arguing back and forth for a few minutes, she raised her voice and nearly yelled, "Don't you think I know how bad things are? Don't you think I understand that we have a lot of problems? Don't you think I know all of this? I can't focus on these negatives all the time because I have to live somehow." 

Then it struck me - she knows the same things I know. She knows that that we are in a tough spot. She knows that hydroxycloroquine probably won't work. She knows that preventive medicine is probably a fantasy for the general population. She knows that the president is not being honest with her - but she accepts this deception because it helps her to cope. When I forced her to acknowledge these truths, her faith in the president did not waiver. Her relationship with me, however, was strained. 

If many of the president's faithful maintain mutual pretense with him, then how do we address his lies? While highlighting the falsehoods can help those willing to be convinced, this might actually drive the president's base closer to him. Perhaps the answer is framing the difficult news as reason for hope. Rather than focusing on the failure of hydroxychloroquine, focus on the multiple clinical trials that are a real source of hope. Instead of saying, "The president is lying about hydroxychloroquine," perhaps we can say, "I really wish the president would not focus on hydroxychloroquine, because it is distracting from other really promising clinical trials." We can frame his lie as an assault on a greater hope, a hope that acknowledges the harsh reality but promises to push toward better days. We never would have made it to the moon if we didn't realize how hard it would be. This approach might allow individuals to re-calibrate their goals and hopes. Whether this works is an empirical question, but nothing else has helped... Maybe it's worth a shot.

Thanks for your time.

Best,
Bryan Sisk, MD, MSCI

this makes a whole lot of sense, but it really takes someone like this actually explaining it in this manner to really encapsulate it so accurately.  the cancer analogy is a good one.  in this case, the cancer is, well, everything going on in the world.  but the pediatric doctor (in the cancer scenario) and the writer of the letter (when speaking to the loved one) isn't necessarily us (even if it's us individually trying to convince someone of trump's lies and idiocy, which is sure to strain our own relationships and make them doubt us more).

in this scenario, it's the media.  and it's on purpose.  the media is now distrusted by a huge chunk of people, and like the letter stated, is actually driving the base closer to trump and his bullshit.  on a micro level, sure, you may get into an argument with a friend or family member, but it's the media that is portrayed as the "person shining a light", and thus becomes the one who's resented and distrusted in the end.

[Brisketexan 106628]

1 minute ago, Pancho said:

 

I mean.....for fuck's sake.

Enough.  Get the fuck out of our house, you worthless shitbag.

[cactusflinthead 27626]

I can feel the synapses misfiring while I read that word salad 

[henrygandorf 29221]

3 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

i could've written that answer, almost word-for-word, with remarkable accuracy.

so predictable.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

17 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

Mexican Al Gore is pretty spot on.  But I'd say you sound like an intelligent Jay Sekulow.

he sounds crazier than a road lizard...

[Red Five 41596]

Jesus Christ. "How do we address this problem Mr. President?"

"I'M DOING VERY WELL IN THE POLLS. THE ECONOMY WAS GREAT. CHINA VIRUS!".

"Um, ok. But the law enforcement problem..."

"SLEEPY JOE BIDEN!". 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

I am totally convinced that Lindsey Graham has been compromised. There is nothing else that would explain the 180-degree turnaround from Trump basher to Trump sycophant.

I am still not convinced of Lindsey being “compromised” mainly because almost any kompromat wouldn’t have much political consequence for him. He can just fake news that away or get Bill Barr to squash any investigation. 

I believe Lindsey is in it for the power, the access to power, and the influence he can have over power.  He has always been this way.  When he was a Trump critic, he was fighting for power against Trump.  All the books I’ve read on the Trump administration paint Lindsey as one of the few voices Trump cares deeply about, especially after the Kavanaugh performance.  Lindsey has never come off as someone that hates what he’s doing, he loves it.  He’s gained power under Trump too in becoming the head of the Senate judiciary committee. He was instrumental in installing Bill Barr.
 He’s as close to the inner circle as any Senator and he’s not going to do anything to jeopardize it.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Captainant 28390]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

i could've written that answer, almost word-for-word, with remarkable accuracy.

so predictable.

There's actually some pretty funny AI/ML models of trumpspeak and I gotta say... they're not far off lol

https://filiph.github.io/markov/

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

7 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

Holy shit- his answer was basically “half my speech when the rocket launched was about Floyd, but nothing is ever enough...”

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Jesus Christ. "How do we address this problem Mr. President?"

"I'M DOING VERY WELL IN THE POLLS. THE ECONOMY WAS GREAT. CHINA VIRUS!".

"Um, ok. But the law enforcement problem..."

"SLEEPY JOE BIDEN!". 

“He wears a mask like a pussy”

[mdmost 43851]

Please tell me this was recorded so Sarah Cooper can do a send up. 

[cactusflinthead 27626]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

this makes a whole lot of sense, but it really takes someone like this actually explaining it in this manner to really encapsulate it so accurately.  the cancer analogy is a good one.  in this case, the cancer is, well, everything going on in the world.  but the pediatric doctor (in the cancer scenario) and the writer of the letter (when speaking to the loved one) isn't necessarily us (even if it's us individually trying to convince someone of trump's lies and idiocy, which is sure to strain our own relationships and make them doubt us more).

in this scenario, it's the media.  and it's on purpose.  the media is now distrusted by a huge chunk of people, and like the letter stated, is actually driving the base closer to trump and his bullshit.  on a micro level, sure, you may get into an argument with a friend or family member, but it's the media that is portrayed as the "person shining a light", and thus becomes the one who's resented and distrusted in the end.

Add science and most experts to that. It explains some of why they dig in harder. The idea can be extrapolated to a wide range of issues.

[HenryJames 67116]