Is the reason why Americans are turning on immigration because of red states shipping illegals to blue states?

 So, I was just thinking about this today, and about the whole "immigration crisis". There seems to be a significant right turn over the past year on the issue. Now, some of it is gonna be because of fox news and republicans screaming about it and creating a commotion on it, but honestly, I've been kind of thinking, when DeSantis and Abbott decided to shift illegal immigrants up to northern states, did it create a crisis that's causing backlash even among some liberals? 

I actually kind of think it is. I mean. Here's the thing, and this is my stance on immigration too. Like, I dont care about this issue, for the most part, immigration has been considered to be a net positive to america, they dont commit crime, they dont steal welfare, they contribute to the economy, blah blah blah. And as long as that image of immigration is positive, I could see a lot of americans being like "sure, we can be sympathetic on the issue."

But what happens if red states near the border who have waves of illegals coming in start shipping them to New York, Chicago, Boston, or various cities in California? Well, suddenly these cities are finding themselves having to find places for these guys to live. Suddenly public expenditures go up as we're giving them welfare and stipends to live on (I know I've seen New Yorkers on reddit going apecrap over this recently, asking where their monthly checks are, you could've had Andrew Yang, guys). I know when I research California one of Newsom's stunning healthcare achievements has been expanding Medi-Cal to illegals...while also shooting down single payer. 

And I can't help but feel like if I lived in one of these areas, I'd feel resentment. Because I'm an ex conservative, and it's a feeling I know well. What many Americans think are "I work so hard, why should my tax money to go illegals so they can get crap for free? They shouldn't be here." And then people wanna deport them. In a sense, the right deporting these guys to blue states is creating anti immigration resentment in those blue states, and to be honest, I kinda get it. It's easy to be left wing on immigration when the issue doesnt affect you and you have no skin in the game, but when suddenly the taxpayers are charged with housing and sustaining these people resentment sets in. 

And let's face it, I'm the UBI guy, even I'm like "yeah, illegals shouldnt get this as it creates a sustainability issue and a lot of resentment." I honestly think the solution to the resentment idea is universal programs. if we can get a UBI and universal healthcare that provides a net benefit to 70-80% of the population, then yeah that crap's gonna be a third rail of politics and never NOT be popular (as long as Americans can get past their obsession with work ethic and dogmatic Lockean property rights). But given we don't have that, even in the bluest of blue state, it's like "what are we even doing here? why are we providing for these people when we dont do this for our own citizens?" And that's where the resentment sets in.

The fact is, by deporting the illegals to blue states for them to deal with, the red states have driven the country right on that issue where suddenly most people believe we have an immigration crisis and most people believe it's more important to solve it.

Me, I live in a minority majority neighborhood and while I understand why some have gone in a Trumpian direction over that, I think a more Yangesque direction is better. UBI for all, healthcare for all, and boom, you solve poverty, you solve joblessness, you solve unemployment, and while some people will remain racist, it's like whatever. Trumpers gonna Trump. 

But yeah for people who werent dealing with this who now are, they must be feeling a culture shock. Like, I can see why they can get resentful. Everyone is a virtue signaller who talks a big game until the issue affects them, then suddenly they turn into the biggest nimbys ever. It's why I dont like to deal with wealthy suburbanites for example in forming political coalitions. Dems are trying hard to win those guys over, but let's face it, many of those guys created the situations we deal with in the first place by committing urban flight a generation ago and now sit in their gated communities pontificating to everyone else about white privilege while simultaneously screaming "not my tax dollars" the second they're expected to shell out for anything. It's human nature. Most people are self interested, most are gonna support what helps THEM, the key is to design a platform around what helps MOST people and accomplish change that way. 

But, let's face it, if illegal immigrants are going to be a burden on people rather than an asset that largely doesnt affect them, most people will turn against the left on this issue, and they're gonna have to triangulate. Honestly, my own position on the issue fluctuates with how much it does vs doesn't affect me. I honestly don't care about the issue but if it did affect me, if it did raise my taxes while I get nothing in return, or it did make a housing crisis in my community, yeah, I would probably care, and I would probably care FROM THE RIGHT. 

My humanitarianism on the issue is ironically coming from a place of privilege, as is most people. if we can afford to not care about the issue, then yeah, being left wing is easy. But if it starts messing up our communities, well, we can see how quickly Americans can turn on a dime. I can't be surprised.

Honestly, i think dems have to move to the center on the issue to appease the citizens, although when they do, they're often not rewarded because the GOP will suddenly obstruct on it while simultaneously calling them weak and promising to do more. because let's face it, Republicans are obstructive, spiteful pieces of crap who obstruct for pure political reasons, which is why I did that rant on Mitch McConnell earlier.

Appealing to "other cultures" doesn't generally make self immolation any better

 So....some people online actually think that what Aaron Bushnell did was a good and brave thing. I think these people are nuts. One argument they like to trot out is to talk about the Arab Spring guy and some Buddhist monks who did it during the Vietnam war. And I'm just going to say it, I don't care, this doesn't make it any better. 

Look, despite being a secular humanist, I'm not a full on cultural or moral relativist. While yes, in theory, all actions are morally equal in the absence of an objective moral law established by a deity to judge people, I am not of the opinion all cultural or moral opinions are equal. I think, tautologically, morality is intended to improve and extend the quality of life of those subject to it. As such, some actions HELP toward such goals, and others HURT. Obviously, setting yourself on fire for no freaking reason HURTS. And while, in my principle that people should be free to live as they want given they don't harm others, and this is merely harming oneself, I still think it's stupid. Yeah people have a freedom to do it, but they shouldn't be celebrated or encouraged, and a culture that does so has some serious moral defects in my opinion. 

Perhaps in non western cultures that weigh the value of an individual human life differently than my western sensibilities, such a decision is...shall we say, more understandable. But that doesn't make it more moral, in my opinion, because suicide is counterproductive to the goal of morality, which is, again, to extend and enhance human life above what it would be otherwise. I guess if you pushed me, I could say self sacrifice is valid if it serves a valid direct purpose, like jumping on a grenade to save a squad in war. But this dude....didn't do that. He set himself on fire, AS A VIRTUE SIGNAL. The whole point of this is to say "look at me and how much I believe in this cause, im gonna set myself on fire to guilt and shame you into changing things." And most of the time, the death is pointless, it's a virtue signal it serves no immediate purpose, but people think it's hardcore so they celebrate it and look at how dedicated he was to his ideals.

He was radicalized, plain and simple. This is radicalization. Period. It isnt something that should be encouraged or celebrated. And even in the other contexts, it doesnt make much sense to me. I guess if  you feel super hopeless living under an oppressive dictator and you're sending a message that you dont wanna live on the planet any more and this is your big exit, eh...maybe, but even then, again, I'm not going to encourage that. But this guy didn't even have a personal stake in the issue, which makes this far more pointless and tragic. It LITERALLY WAS a pointless virtue signal. 

There are better ways to make your position on Gaza known. Like voting "uncommitted" in Michigan. 

And yeah. Unless you're a professional pyrotechnic who knows how to do this stuff SAFELY (yes, I just had to sneak some Rammstein in there), I highly advise NOT setting yourself on fire as a form of protest. If you are a professional pyrotechnic who can do it safely and live to tell the tale afterwards with at most minor injuries, well, I can probably respect that a bit more.

Mitch McConnell is retiring as republican senate leader: good riddance

 So....turtle man is retiring. He will finish out his term, but he's giving up his gavel. Good, good riddance. 

His legacy is a dark one. He represents an era in the senate of eroding norms and increased political polarization. He's the dude who decided when he took over the senate in 2010 that his goal was to make Obama a one term president. This led to insane levels of obstruction in the senate never before seen, with Boehner doing something similar in the house. This stuff is one of the things that caused me to fall out with the GOP initially btw. How the GOP governed during this era was just insane, and watching them obstruct everything just to stop obama turned me off big time. 

He also was responsible for delaying Obama's choosing of a seat to replace Scalia into Trump's term, meaning Trump instead got to replace Scalia. So yeah, screw this guy. 

Anyway, with him randomly blue screening in public, I'm not surprised. Dude's in his 80s and mentally it's debatable if he's even all there. Ya know, it really is messed up, we got Trump who is in his mid-late 70s, we got Biden who is in his 80s, and this guy in his 80s, and Pelosi in her 80s, and Dianne Feinstein who was a vegetable when she died in office, and it's like, these people are MAD OLD, and they shouldnt be in office any more, and they should step aside so a new generation of people can take over. 

So....Im not sad to see McConnell go, it's well overdue. And his legacy is crap. Seriously, before he took over the senate, it was a better place. We had more norms, more cooperation across the aisle, and we didnt obstruct and hold literally everything hostage for short term political gains. This dude's legacy is obstruction, getting nothing done because he didnt believe in government doing things anyway, and a conservative supreme court. Screw this guy.

Sam Seder owns Dr Phil and Joe Rogan on UBI and work ethic

 So, I'm mostly just gonna add to Seder's commentary, he did an excellent job here in discussing the situation, but Joe Rogan recently had an interview with Dr. Phil and they discussed UBI and work ethic. Basically, it was two rich guys complaining about people getting too much money and losing their work ethic, it was cringe.

As Seder himself pointed out, here's these guys' perspective. They basically are rich dude who want people to serve THEM. They basically get pissy they couldnt get restaurant service on demand during the pandemic, when honestly, restaurant service is a LUXURY, and not typically a necessity. Just wanna point that out. You dont NEED to get food out, ESPECIALLY in a sit down restaurant, and quite frankly, as you guys can probably tell based on that one rant i had on vacation, I dont even like getting food out as humans make mistakes and provide poor service in the first place a large portion of the time. I dont blame workers for this, but yeah if we could like automate or streamline the process that would be great. Just nothing about the experience is attractive, people get mediocre experience, these guys gotta bust their ###es to give me a mediocre perspective, they dont really wanna be there, and they shouldnt have to be, it's totally fair. And if restaurant service becomes more expensive or goes the way of the dodo because of UBI, well...so be it. Maybe the karens of the world will have to adjust but the world shouldnt revolve around them, and yes, I consider Joe Rogan and Dr. Phil to be male Karens. 

These guys were talking about people being paid not to work, yes it happens when you give people high UNEMPLOYMENT. Basic income is technically work neutral, it doesnt mean people HAVE to work, but it doesnt mean people can't either. Conditional aid is what causes welfare traps where people are punished for not working.

The reason welfare sucks and someone who works might only earn marginal amounts more than not working is also due to the safety net being conditional and then having steep cutoffs. Welfare traps are actually an argument FOR a UBI, not against it, and under a UBI, anyone would earn more money working than if they didn't. If you make $15k minimum wage, my UBI would lead to an increase in $3k in taxes, but you would also get $15k back. Given your standard payroll taxes and maybe a light income tax, you'd pay maybe 30-40% of your work income, losing maybe $5-6k of the $15,000 earned. You would be up to $24-25k rather than $15k staying home. If that isnt enough, then that means your employer should have to pay you more, and let's face it, $15k for a WAGE is hot garbage and you SHOULD be paid more. 

So anyway, say you get $30k. Okay, so you pay an additional $6k in taxes, maybe paying $12-15k total, and with UBI you get $15k and you probably take home something equivalent to your gross pay. And...that's bad why? You stay home you get $15k, you work, you get $30k or maybe more. Keep in mind Im talking the 20% flat tax on top of your normal taxes, ya know, the 9% you pay for payroll taxes give or take, a marginal income tax rate based on the current tax system of 0%, 10%, and then 15% in taxes. Maybe some local taxes of 4-6%, so yeah. You might pay 50% of your earned income. Although UBI more than compensates your tax burden. As it is, you'd pay like $9k of that $30k anyway, so this just raises it up while giving you $15k, you get more money in net.

$60k, you might pay an additional $12k in taxes, but UBI still gives you $15k back. Same deal. And yeah. These taxes sound high, but it's no different than living in most of Europe and UBI refunds the money below $75k anyway. Would there be some reduction in work ethic? Between higher taxes and less need to work in the first place, perhaps, but not the end of the world if the social science is to be believed. Because most people dont wanna live on $15k a year, so the question is how high do wages need to be to attract people to work and can the economy sustain that without significant inflation. UBI would likely have to be set at the level that is high enough to sustain life, but not too high to discourage work ethic too much. Keep in mind the higher the UBI the higher the taxes so its a bit of a double whammy. But yeah, even if $15k is too much perhaps we should try $12k or something like that. Some amount will work.

Now, as for Dr. Phils discussion about your typical person on disability, and how when they dont work they get their ability from things that arent work and might not spend time working, uh....maybe thats a good thing. Not saying being in rehab is good, heck, being in rehab is expensive, my mom is in rehab right now over an injury she sustained somewhat recently and it's expensive AF, even with medicare. People dont pay for that unless they HAVE TO. 

Anyway, so people who are in that stuff might identify more with that than they do with a job...so what? Maybe not everything in life is work, and that's what conservatives seem to fear most, that without work being forced on all of us, we might lose our work ethic and realize there's more to life than work, so we need to force work on people so that they spend all of their time working and never have time for anything else.

I know I have already gone into ideological indoctrination and mind control with the Bushnell situation tonight, but yeah, this is cult like behavior. Cults like to make people work themselves half to death...because if you give people time to think, they might question the cult. So the goal to keeping them in the cult is keeping them busy all the time. Society at large is like that, except with work, we keep people indoctrinated in the cult of work and dont want people to get too comfortable outside of work because they might realize there's more to life than work. it's why the rich and the elites fought work from home so much. It didnt matter if work from home workers could do more in less time, what mattered was that when people worked from home bosses couldnt CONTROL workers and impose a certain environment and work ethic on them. It's all about CONTROL. They wanna keep us beaten down and brainwashed like little wage slaves. This is also why when hiring people get so obsessed with gaps in your resume, they see people who havent worked constantly since age 16 to be unreliable since...they might have a mind outside of a slavish work ethic, so they'll highly prefer people who have been in the work force constantly for a while over someone who has been out of it, and the idea that workers cant just get back into the work force isnt so much the fact that people might not desire to get back in but the fact that businesses dont wanna hire them as they see those workers as less reliable. Businesses want wage slaves, and nice worker bees, they dont want people who might be independent minded. They dont want people who might see through their bullcrap and stand up to them. They want obedience. WE ARE SLAVES IN THIS ECONOMY.

And that's what Dr. Phil and Joe Rogan and conservatives seem to fear, that if we get a taste of freedom, many of us won't want to go back. I admit, if too many people decide that at once, then maybe it IS bad for society. We still need workers, but I think it is desirable over time to reduce the amount we NEED working at any one time, with the active goal of working less and less. But the cult of jobism is about keeping people working forever and ever for infinite growth so they just oppose that at all costs. For the jobists, there's never a future that involves less work, it's always a hundred years away, a thing of sci fi, where it will never happen in our lifetimes. Maybe, though some social process we dont understand, it will magically happen, but no one thinks through the logistics of how, it just magically does. Like one day we wake up and "yay we reached post scarcity, robots do everything, we dont have to work any more". No one thinks about the process of how we get from A to B, except, well...thinkers like me. 

Because if we keep going, we're gonna be exactly where we are now in 100 years. Same 40 hour work weeks, same poverty and economic insecurity, same crappy attitudes, dependence on jobs, technological unemployment, etc. It's a system's problem, and we need to reform our system to fix it. And my ideas are intended to put us on the path to that kind of post work future.

But...conservatives like Joe Rogan and Dr. Phil, ie, conservatives, fear that future. Because they think that if we arent all working all of the time, no one would work and society would fall apart. I admit, if we end up going from one extreme to another, yes, society WILL fall apart, but again, these people dont think in increments, they think in terms of everyone doing A, or everyone doing B. I think in terms of "some people doing A and some people doing B", as long as the common good is served, so what if people make different choices? I understand everyone has different motivations, different inclinations, and different levels of ambition and work ethic. And the goal is to ensure that we just have enough warm bodies in the positions to do what we need for the time being, while maximizing freedom under the economy we have now. let the ambitious conservative types work, and let the lazy people don't. And the common good will be served and while conservatives will grumble and complain, i mean, let's face it, i dont care. People as rich as Joe Rogan and Dr. Phil should be taxed, and taxed heavily, and they might nto like it, but tough. 70% rate. 47% they currently pay and then 20% on top of it. Maybe a little more for healthcare. And boom. Social science says many will still work at those levels, and while they might complain, it's their choice. ANd let's face it, 1/3 of many many millions is still many many millions. I'm not concerned. 

The fact is, the only value to work ethic is filling jobs in a society that needs and values work. As we become more advanced, our work needs should DECREASE, the only reason they increase or stay the same is because we live in capitalist death cult that values work to insane degrees, because they operate according to the thinking of people like this. And these guys are authoritarians, they want to boss people around and tell them what to do with their lives, and wanna force them to work. They dont trust people to make the right decisions, people need to be FORCED to make the decision THEY deem right. And that often involves a lot of coercion in order to do. The logic of these guys is how we got the work houses, it's why the alternative to work is crushing poverty and homelessness, the system is literally structured to make the alternatives to work as miserable as possible to make them work, they think if you make not working comfortable, no one would work. And that is, in and of itself, the core source of poverty, those contradictions under capitalism. I dont always go into the "contradictions of capitalism" like a marxist, but that is a valid point here. We have a society in which everyone is expected to work, and then a system that doesnt provide enough jobs. A system in which we say people end up where they are based on the merits, but a system dedicated to fail and punish so many people. A system that promises plenty, but a system that condemns many to poverty. And all because we cant break this stupid cultish work obsession. 

Really, that's why we have poverty. That's why capitalism sucks. That's literally the root cause of the employer side of the problems of capitalism. Im not saying it's the root cause of all of the consumer side problems, like high rent, or high prices in other industries, those are a separate set of problems that deserve consideration and solutions, but honestly, if we had a UBI, capitalism would be a much better, more fair, and more just system. Not saying it would be perfect, we obviously will need things on top of capitalism, but if you wanna make it not suck, we gotta drop the work thing. The attitudes expressed by people like Joe Rogan and Dr. Phil are why we're still living in capitalism's dark ages. Like, LITERALLY. People like THAT are the real problem with the system. 

Because if capitalism worked as intended, working would be a choice, then jobs would be filled by supply and demand, and the market does what it does, and while the government needs to engineer a sustainable outcome, it doesnt have to engineer this current existing sustainable outcome, which is just a system of wage slavery that leads to most of us spending most of our lives working for little valid reason at all.

Battle of cringe, round 2

 So, I have another race to the bottom cringefest for you. In one corner, we have Vaush, deranged luddite going on another unhinged rant about AI being bad, and in the other, we have Jensen Huang, tech bro, and head of Nvidia, a company that, as a PC gamer, I currently despise. Who ends up losing this race to the bottom? Let's find out.

So, this all started with Jensen Huang, nvidia CEO, basically saying we shouldnt teach kids to code because AI will do it in the future, and Vaush, the jobist who believes humans should do things that he is, went on a huge rant about this, because, again, he's a luddite who hates AI. And he's wrong here...to some extent.

Like, here's the thing. We often teach kids to go into fields that by the time they end up being trained in them, they arent relevant. We millennials had a bit of a crapshow of an education. We were the generation that learned cursive only to never use it outside of signing things, and we were always told we needed to know math because we'll never walk around with calculators in our pockets, even though we actually do just that. 

We also ended up being told GO TO COLLEGE GO TO COLLEGE GO TO COLLEGE GO TO COLLEGE, and sold higher education as a path to success, only to enter the crapshow of an economy during the worst recession in 80 years, and most of us couldn't find jobs. As such, we are the first generation poorer than our parents, and a generation that is largely screwed by society. Gen Z actually learned from us NOT to go to college, to go into stem, and also...to learn to code. 

But, let's face it, generative AI and other tech advances are ground breaking, and we should, unlike vaush's approach, celebrate it. We should LOVE it when AI comes for our jobs, and puts us out of work, because it's not joblessness that's inherently bad, its our economic system that forces people to find jobs in order to meet their basic needs in a world in which labor seems increasingly irrelevant and unncessary but we keep insisting that people do it because that's how we always did it and how dare you question it. And perhaps teaching kids to code now, will, in 10-15 years, when they become adults in the job market, come back around to bite them. Maybe we are creating another college graduate type crisis with the next generation like we did with us millennials. 

At the same time, let's be honest, Jensen Huang is a blowhard. I HATE this guy. He is literally the kind of tech bro who WOULD oversell AI, because it's his job to market it, and I've been listening to this guy's marketing BS about his "this" is the future, and "that" is the future, and honestly, UGH, F THIS GUY, F THIS GUY, F THIS GUY, F THIS GUY. And Vaush kinda has a points. Nvidia is betting big on AI, and they're trying to make this the next big thing, as is microsoft. They're pushing hard in a direction of planned obsolescence and creating needs that dont currently exist so we have to buy their overpriced hardware to stay relevant. 

And honestly? Nvidia has had a DISASTROUS effect on the GPU market over the past decade. They basically attained near monopoly status and they basically are conditioning users to pay more for worse graphics cards. Like, the 4000 series, there was some discussion recently based on things like die sizes and power usage, that the $300 4060 is what the "50" card should've been. 50 cards USED to cost like $100 back in the day, and even with inflation, we're talking, at most, $140-150. Their "60" cards are actually the 70 cards, which now cost $500-600. The "80" cards used to cost $500-700, now they're over $1k. It's INSANE. GPU prices are bordering on unaffordable. Hardware demands are increasing, and performance is barely going up. We can now get 2x the performance after 8 years, compared to what we got in 2016, and Nvidia's response is that traditional raster performance metrics are outdated, because ray tracing and DLSS are the future. 

Ray tracing is overly expensive tech to basically "trace rays" like real light, it's very costly to do, both in dollars and performance wise, and nvidia put specialized hardware on GPUs to do it. Which has, in and of itself, greatly increased the price of GPUs. Nvidia, to compensate for this, has introduced DLSS, an upscaling feature based in AI, to take small low res images and to blow them up into bigger images. While AMD and intel have alternatives on their cards, they arent as good as they lack the dedicated hardware. To get the best results, you need to buy nvidia cards. And as system requirements go up, games are starting to use DLSS and FSR (AMD's tech) far more to compensate for native resolution. "Native resolution is dead" is a common nvidia talking point, with the desire to use these upscaling techs to replace actually rendering things at full resolution, which....tends to lock people into needing to buy nvidia cards to use this tech. Because if you buy AMD, guess what, you can upscale but it looks worse. So Vaush is right when he mentioned us having these tiny blurry pictures upscaled into higher res ones and that being the future and it being crappy, because nvidia is literally conditioning the market into that, because it benefits their bottom line. it makes people more reliant on their cards and eco system where they cant go to the competition even if they try, and it raises the price of GPUs significantly because where else are you gonna go? if you want the best performance with the best features, you need nvidia.

This is monumentally bad for the GPU market, and i myself bought AMD to resist what nvidia is doing. I like my card, but let's face it, even the AMD cards are kinda overpriced and underpowered, and theyre merely selling their cards a bit cheaper than nvidia because they cant wield these features to bully people into buying their stuff, so you get better performance but a worse feature set. For now, I think AMD is viable, but in the future, nvidia might just crowd the market out with their proprietary bullcrap, or AMD will be forced to compete with nvidia on nvidia's terms, meaning they too will have to raise the prices of GPUs because they have to put all of this ray tracing and generative AI bull#### on their cards and that itself means cards will be more expensive. None of this is actually good for the consumer. Especially since upscaling just doesnt produce images as good as native resolution, especially at lower resolutions. DLSS and FSR are used ideally with at least a 1080p base resolution and upscaled to 1440p or 4k. But for lower end buyers, which are most people with nvidia and AMD's insane new pricing structure where the sub $200 market is basically destroyed and no longer exists in a meaningful way and the $200-300 market is now the bottom rung, we might need to run stuff at 720p or even 540p just to be able to run games at 1080p. It's INSANE. And new games are like that too sometimes. My card is only like a year old and it's already aging like milk because of this crap. The market is literally going full on "let's make a $300 card run games at low settings 720p even though that's currently what we're selling on the market". Dont believe me? Look at crap like alan wake 2 and ark survival ascended. Or even something like starfield. It's insane. As we leave the venerated 1000 series behind it's like overnight the cards were buying to replace those old cards are quickly becoming just as obsolete very quickly. This is BAD for the market.

And of course, Jensen Huang is gonna light a couple benjamins on fire to light a cigarette while telling us about the joys of generative AI that he's putting in his cards and how this stuff is the future and how we need to get on baord with it. God I hate that guy. I hate to say it but Vaush does have a point here.

However, let's not agree too much with vaush, because he clearly is an anti technology luddite who takes things too far. He romanticizes a world in which humans work and do things and the very suggestion that AI puts people out of the job seems to send him into a flying rage, and that's just as cringe. I mean, neither one of these guys are really in the right. One guy is a raging luddite and the other is a tech bro trying to sell people products they dont need and trap them in an eco system where he creates a demand for something that only they can fill, and much like a drug dealer giving away "free samples", he's not doing it out of the good of his heart, but in order to create a new class of customer dependent on them for an artificial need. 

Neither one of these guys are good guys. So much like with Clinton vs the cease fire now, unstoppable object bounces off of the immovable force, where the unstoppable object cant stop and the immovable force can't move, so the unstoppable object just ricochets somewhere else instead, leaving this battle a tie.

The electoral argument for a ceasefire

 Now, onto another discussion, let's go into a form of protest that I tend to value as more effective, and that I tend to respect a lot more, and that being VOTING. If you really wanna change things, you have to VOTE, not do stupid crap like set yourself on fire, but VOTE! And we discussed Michigan last night, and how people there voted, and the message they sent was loud and clear.

Before I get into this, I want to reiterate my perspective on Israel-Gaza. I'm inherently pro Israel, but given the extreme actions of the Netanyahu administration, I have to distance my support from him at this time. The war in Gaza is basically a crazed vengeful bloodlust by the state of Israel, and Israel is not holding themselves to a standard normally accepted by western nations at this time. THeir behavior is, at the very minimum, complete overkill, and at most, a genocide. I would argue the situation is in the grey area in that sense, but the fact that there is an argument to call it a genocide says something about the brutality of Israel's behavior here.

At the same time, geopolitics is complicated, Biden doesnt have a magic wand, and I'm not sure a cease fire is practical or desirable. The fact is, Hamas started this current iteration of this war, and I don't think they'll just stop. Moreover, I am not convinced we could leverage a cease fire with Israel without publicly breaking from our support of Israel, which is not a road I'd prefer to go down. Sure we COULD support a ceasefire, but in the long term it would solve nothing, and just damage our relationship with Israel. A distancing of the US from israel could even escalate the conflict as other Arab nations decide to jump in against it, leading to the conflict getting more extreme and bloody. So let's not act like this is a simple conflict with a simple solution, it is not. And as much as I dislike Netanyahu's behavior, I'm not sure forcing a cease fire is a good idea.

Nor do I think this is the issue the left should die on the hill of. Honestly, I am staying focused on the same issues I always focus on. UBI, M4A, free college, student debt forgiveness, climate change, housing, etc. I don't really care a ton about this stuff. I find it cringey the left wont stand up for the priorities I emphasize but they go so bugnuts over this issue. And for a while I've been taking potshots at these guys online bashing them and making fun of them for it. Not only do I think this isn't a good issue to make a stink over, it's also not a good time, given we're facing a very precarious domestic situation with Trump being a literal dictator wanting to come back into power, and overthrow democracy itself. He is DANGEROUS, and this is the WORST TIME for the left to grow a spine (and I say this after going green in 2016 and 2020).

Still, as we have seen in Michigan, the voters have spoken. 100k have voted for "uncommitted" with large concentrations of them probably doing so over Gaza. There was an organized campaign pushing for a cease fire now, and this was the left's way to apply political pressure on Biden saying "here's our votes, these are our demands, come and get them". And you know what, as a 2016 and 2020 third party voter, I kind of have to respect the hustle here. They used the same playbook I've been saying the left HAS to use to get concessions from dems, basically hit them where it hurts: electorally, at the ballot box. And they did so in...perhaps not large enough numbers to flip the state given the current margins, but large enough that based on the historical performance of this state in recent elections, is enough to be relevant and shift the outcome if the election gets closer. Keep in mind, in 2016, Hillary only lost Michigan by 10000 votes. in 2020, Biden won it by 150k. Im not convinced every vote for uncommitted is for a cease fire, heck, 20k seems to be a normal amount in a primary, but that's still 80k worth of votes that are potentially up for grabs here. And let's face it, we NEED Michigan.

Here's the electoral map from my last election prediction. Take a good look. Let it sink in. Look at the 2 closest states, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Right now WI is slightly red, and PA slightly blue. Without PA, Biden has 226 electoral votes, assuming NE2 goes Biden (225 without it). PA brings it up to 245, and WI to 255. We need 15 more. 

Where can we get 15 more? Well, the five other states worth discussing up for grabs here are North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Michigan. Iowa is also at 8 exactly, so im not sure I'd consider it in the same class as the others, but you get the idea. Of those five states, which are the most likely to go blue? Eh, all of them are tough sells. Arizona is up 4.5% for Trump, Michigan 4.8, and beyond that we very quickly go into 7 point territory, which is a lot harder to flip. We're 2-4x more likely to flip a state that's up 4-5 for Trump than one that's 6-8. Michigan could get us to 270, and if we get that, we win. It doesnt matter what else happens. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, best, most reliable strategy for democrats. Neglecting the rust belt to pursue the south is what cost Hillary in 2016. In 2020, Biden managed to win back the rust belt, and also win some southern states. But in this tough 2024 environment, we're down 5-7 points compared to where Biden was in 2020. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are both virtual coin flips right now. if we assume Biden gets them, it's a start, but he really needs Michigan to seal the deal. If he gets it, again, doesnt matter what else happens, 270-268, gg no re. But....100k voters, enough to potentially swing the election, just basically said "hey, we want a ceasefire now, and we might not support you in the general if you don't give us one". So....these guys got Biden by the balls. They just issued an ultimatum, and I'm going to be honest, I myself aint particularly happy about this either, but Biden HAS to rise to the challenge here, if he wants to win. he could be throwing away the election otherwise. Sometimes in a nation of 340 million people, all you need are a few thousand in the right states to cause electoral chaos, and these guys just basically told Biden "hey we want this, either give it to us or no vote." 

Biden HAS to do it. It doesnt matter if it's good policy, or the sane practical thing to do. We got bigger issues on hand than israel/palestine. And I highly encourage Biden to actually break out his executive order pen, or pick up that big red phone connected to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, and to lay down the law on Netanyahu here. 

If he doesn't, he's gonna need another path. And honestly, what other path does he have? NC, GA, and AZ are all electorally volatile. Even if Biden ran a perfect campaign and does everything right, these are southern states that dont typically vote for democrats. They might in a very blue year, but they normally don't. And I feel like the dems try too hard to appeal to these states, and often have nothing to show for it. Trying so hard in these state's was Clinton's folly in 2016. She ignored the rust belt and tried to win the south, she said "I dont need you" to pissed off rust belt voters and look at how that turned out for her. Biden ignoring arab voters in Michigan reeks of the same hubris and will have the same result, he is basically gonna hand the election over to Trump on a silver platter here. 

So yeah. The people have spoken, and Biden has to listen and act. If he doesn't, he might lose the election over this Palestine bullcrap. For real. And you know what? If fricking Aaron Bushnell didn't set himself on fire, maybe he too could've voted in a way that would impact Biden here. Again, this is protesting that WORKS, this is political hardball, it's civil, it's clean, its effective, and it sends a message. Far more than gluing yourself to a road or screaming like a toddler at a political rally or setting yourself on fire does. 

That said, Joe, what's it gonna be? You gonna show the political courage to do the right thing here or are you gonna throw away the election over this crap? Because democracy belongs to the voters, they are YOUR BOSS, it is YOUR JOB to listen, and they gave you an order. Ignore it at your peril. For the love of god, don't get fired by the american people and replaced with the psychotic apprentice-man. There's too much at stake this election.

Sorry Kyle, but Aaron Bushnell was an extremist nut

 So, Kyle Kulinski put out a video today saying Glenn Beck "pissed on the grave" of Aaron Bushnell for basically saying that he was mentally ill. Apparently Kyle things self immolation is some sort of super brave thing when Glenn Beck points out (rightly, it might add) that this was mental illness and celebrating this sort of thing is pushing a culture of death. I don't agree with Glenn beck on much, if anything at all, but this is his broken clock moment. So let's savor that. 

I already went into how Bushnell was radicalized. I understand this process well, both from experience, and education, and I think my take on him being one step from literal suicide bombers is on point. I don't NECESSARILY think he was mentally ill (although I would say he may have been to some extent), but he is, in fact, radicalized. 

First my experience. So...I used to be a fundie Christian. And, as you guys know, I am strongly opposed to organized religion, and especially extremism. I believe extremism makes people out of touch with reality and that can make them do questionable things, and I encourage people to have as much of a reality based worldview as possible, so they don't do extreme and stupid crap. But when I was christian, I went to this Christian school. In retrospect, some of the things I learned there came off as crazy "Jesus camp" type stuff. Basically, in religious class, we would occasionally watch videos. There was a strong "missionary culture" in the church the school was based around, and they would show us videos of people going to third world countries and "preaching the gospel" to the natives there. And uh...sometimes missionaries are targets of terrorist attacks, or wrongdoers who want to take americans hostage to extort the government for their return. Ya know, that sort of thing. Basically, bad things sometimes happen to missionaries who preach the gospel sometimes. But...they generally believe that no matter what, you don't betray the gospel. Like, the Bible has this martyrdom culture in it. A lot of early christians preached the gospel and met gruesome ends as a result of it, being killed by people who wanted them to renounce their views or whatever. We were basically taught, in this school, that if it came down to it (and it should be noted IF it came down to it, obviously they werent just encourage people to suicide themselves for Jesus), that it is better to die than to renounce Jesus.

Just...think about that for a second. Basically, you are to die for your beliefs, if push comes to shove. It is better for you to die and stay true to Jesus and Christianity, than it is to lie and live. Just...think about it, take all of the time you need. Because even back then, that set off alarm bells with me. I am to DIE, for my beliefs? If a gun is pointed in my face and I'm told to renounce the gospel or die, I'm supposed to take a bullet? Even being relatively fully committed to my views at the time, I kind of felt like that was a big ask, and I never was particularly comfortable with it. And thankfully, after leaving that school, I quickly moderated my beliefs and eventually renounced them through logical means. I stopped believing that stuff because I no longer found it to be true. And it actually was a big milestone in being the person I am today, and why I have this blog, and why I can now tell you guys about this. Because to me, let's be honest, this is CRAZY. NO, you shouldn't generally die for your beliefs. And you especially shouldn't commit suicide for your beliefs. But....religious and political radicalization can make you do insane things, and there is pressure when you're in those kinds of belief systems to do it. I've kinda come to realize there isn't much difference between a Christian who dies for the gospel and one of those "72 virgins" suicide bombers. Both are sacrificing their lives for a "greater good" as they see it within the confines of a religiously extremist worldview. And it should be emphasized, these are extreme worldviews with extreme ideologies. The only real difference is because the christian has more peaceful beliefs, they generally don't take anyone else out with them. Their beliefs are slightly better, being based in nonviolence, whereas a radical islamist's generally isn't. And that's how I view Aaron Bushnell too, as a political extremist who bought into some really toxic ideology and decided to do this as a protest statement, and to also "piss on his grave", sorry, but not sorry, but he wasted his life. He really did. Dude had a future ahead of him, apparently he had a family too, and he just threw it away, and for what? Nothing. 

Now...as I said, I also have the views I have because I also understand this stuff academically. When I was in college, given my political science/criminology/sociology background, I took a class on terrorism. I learned all about terrorism, including why people do that stuff, and again, it's radicalization. Often times people are raised from a young age, kinda like I was as a christian in a way in that christian school, to value a certain ideology or set of ideas above one's life, and because these peoples' moral compasses are so messed up, they'll sacrifice their lives in service of whatever cause their believe in. Now, given we were talking terrorism and criminal acts, what i learned in christian school didn't apply, nor would what happened to aaron bushnell, suicide bombers and the like will try to take people out with them, but we actually did learn a bit about the Israel-gaza conflict quite a bit, and it did shift me to the center on this issue. But yes, we learned about palestinian suicide bombers and why they do what they do. And we did learn about how these conflicts arent as one sided as we think they are and how from their perspective, they think they're in the right. And maybe, just maybe, our actions in the west contribute to the radicalization process. So don't think I dont understand gaza's perspective, I just dont really sympathize with it, because I'm a westerner who has western sympathies toward things. I kinda realize that regardless of your beliefs, this kind of radicalization is not okay, that these behaviors are dangerous, and push comes to shove, if you're dealing with a truly radical enemy that wants you dead and won't listen to reason, well...maybe you DO have to shoot first and ask questions later.

Of course, that was the point of such education, to give me an understanding of the other side, but then to pull me back to reality and say, yeah, regardless of what your opinions are this crap isn't ok, radicalization is not okay, and it's counterproductive to civil society. My education actually is a huge reason why I'm able to just stay liberal through all of these different tides from the left and the right over the course of my life. I have a dedication to civil society, rule of law, and nonviolent means of political change above all else. I don't think violence is okay in the overwhelming majority of situations, and think people are getting way too extreme in recent years, and it scares me, because those liberal values our society is built upon are being lost, both by the MAGA movement on the right, and the radical left. And Aaron Bushnell was a radical leftist, he was an extremist, and he sacrificed himself because of that. We shouldn't valorize that, or reward that, or honor that, but see it as a sign of how politically extreme things are getting and how dangerous that is. The best thing I have to say about him in this context is at least he had the good sense to not take anyone else out with him. But we should not romanticize this guy, or celebrate this guy, and it is completely deranged to me that some do. That form of protest may be acceptable in the most dire of situations, like if you yourself are oppressed, and probably gonna die or face significant mistreatment, so you engage in some extreme form of nonviolent protest to make a point. But NORMALLY? Under NORMAL circumstances? yeah no, this stuff is never ok, we shouldn't celebrate it, we shouldn't reward it, we shouldnt create a culture that says this stuff is okay. We SHOULD value human life, and teach people that regardless of what our views are, we can all come together and discuss them relatively civilly without coming to blows, or doing weird crap like this. And I actually think Glenn Beck is right that the left in celebrating this is creating a "culture of death" that should be highly discouraged by society as a whole. 

Kyle Kulinski is right about Dean phillips

 So, Kyle ripped Dean Phillips over his Nikki Haley VP idea. And while I had my own take on the issue where I was trying to be more fair to Dean...thinking about it, I kind of dont feel comfortable supporting Dean any more, especially with Marianne Williamson getting back into it. I mean, for the record, I was strongly considering just straight up endorsing Biden for a bit, as with him we know what we're gonna get and he isnt as bad as I thought he would be in 2020. But again Biden is more like my last resort option, not my first choice, and given Dean aligns more with me on policy at least on paper, I decided ti stay the course with Dean.

However, I'm going to be honest, Dean Phillips working across the aisle with republicans is a bad idea. I mean, how is he gonna stay true to ANY of his campaign promises if he works across the aisle with someone who thinks polar opposite of him on EVERYTHING. Nikki haley is ok on foreign policy I guess, but on social issues and economic issues, she's HORRIBLE. She's a bog standard republican who is a little weaker and moderate on SOME stuff (read: not totally batcrap insane with it), but that doesnt mean that i LIKE her or would ever endorse her. I want nothing to do with Haley. 

And yeah, Dean is just doing the same mistake Yang did where he ended up sharing his power with a bunch of people diametrically opposed, and suddenly UBI and human centered capitalism is gone. Sure, yang still supports it in theory, but it's a mere virtue signal at this point. And that's how a Dean Phillips presidency or vice presidency would end up. With him just abandoning his entire platform to meet Nikki Haley half way. I'm sorry, but while everyone loves bipartisanship on paper the reason it's so unpopular is because the two parties actually often want totally different things, and don't align.

And while we shouldnt be too insane with our purity tests like the left is doing, there should be like those 5-10 issues that really define you and your candidacy, and if you just abandon them, that doesn't mean anything. I like Dean to an extent because listening to him on Yang's podcast, he was hitting all the right stuff. He was never as extreme as I wanted at times, but again, no one is perfect, we still aligned on most of our top issues to some degree and he was, at the very least, an upgrade from Biden. BUT, if the dude just goes off and plays paddycakes with republicans like Yang is doing with forward, then...this is meaningless.

I wanna emphasize one of the reasons I came back around to Biden in 2023 was because after Yang more or less "betrayed" his movement with his "forward together" crap, I was so alienated Biden's accomplishments started looking good. Had Yang held the line on forward and his ideals, I'd still be ride or die on that camp probably. But like everything else, I ended up just coming around to "ugh, Biden it is...I guess". Like I wanna emphasize that, I really dont WANT to endorse Biden outright until I HAVE to. I want something more, and someone better, but honestly when the alternatives end up messing up that bad, all it does is make me wanna just back Biden because at least we'll get SOMETHING from him.

This bipartisan crap forward and to some extent Dean phillips are delving into is just going to water their politics down to uselessness. You need to have a strong moral compass and a willingness to not abandon your ideas. This isn't to say you never compromise at all, but there should still be those 5-10 things that you believe in that define your candidacy that you absolutely won't compromise much on. When bipartisanship becomes "that thing" it ends up displacing and sabotaging all other things. Because you'll just abandon everything to make the other side happy, when they are our political opponents. And yes, they are opponents. It doesnt mean we should dehumanize them or something, but yes, in politics, your ideas should fight their ideas. Because otherwise, what's the fricking point?

So yeah. Idk if I'll re-endorse Dean if Williamson drops out again, I might just skip the line of succession and go straight to Biden, but yeah. Dean's out, Williamson is back in. If Williamson is an option, well, I know she's genuine. And even if I dont get everything I want (I still dont think she'd follow through on UBI), she's a solid candidate otherwise.

Marianne Williamson is back!

 Marianne Williamson has decided to unsuspend her campaign after watching the Michigan primary. She doesnt believe Biden can win, so she's jumping back in to provide an alternative. She also did about as well as Dean phillips despite not being on the ballot. Anyway, given I've been thinking of dropping Dean lately, given his....erratic direction (ie, the Nikki Haley thing), and given how Marianne does represent my ideals more than anyone else in the race, if she's back in, I'm re-endorsing her. 

Discussing Michigan primary results (particularly democratic results)

 So, in an upset that no one could have ever predicted, Donald Trump won the republican primary, and Joe Biden the democratic primary! Shocking, I know. Trump won with 67.7% of the vote to Nikki Haley's 27.7% of the vote as of now, with 52% of the vote in. Joe Biden won with 80.7% of the vote with 41% reporting. Marianne Williamson is at 3%, and Dean phillips is at 2.8%. 

So...why do I want to talk about this? Because 13.5% of voters are currently "uncommitted". There was a write in campaign in Michigan to show support for Palestine with a "cease fire now" type thing. Basically all the uncommitted votes are intended to be cease fire now. 

And I'm going to be honest, what my reaction to this campaign would be was gonna depends on turnout. As you guys know, I have a disdain for the ceasefire now people. I cant imagine why so many people on the left are so deranged to make this their red line. And if we ended up with another 1.2% like we did in New Hampshire, I was just gonna laugh it off.

But at 13.5%....that gives me pause. As we know, Biden is down roughly 4.8% in michigan last I checked. And if half of the people who vote in the general voted in the primary, a 9% amount or higher for uncommitted could represent an amount of support that could shift the election away from Biden. 

To put things into perspective, in 2016, Trump won Michigan by 10000-11000 votes. In 2020, Biden won by around 155,000 votes. Right now, at 43% (another percent came in as I was writing this), we got 53,575 votes for uncommitted. If the same rate applies overall, to 100% of the votes, we're talking around 125,000 votes give or take. In 2016, we had a total of 4,548,382 votes. In 2020, we had 5,453,892. This doesn't involve third party votes obviously. I dont know what turnout will be in 2024, 2020 had absurdly high turnout, but if I had to guess, say 5,000,000 votes. 125,000 is about 2.5% of the voting population. 

We are down 4.8%. Admittedly, even if Biden did a cease fire, and every one of these votes switched to Biden, we still gotta get 2.3% more, or an extra 100,000 people or so. But we could cut our deficit in half with these people.

Given how close michigan often is, this is a close margin. Again, this is more than 10x what the actual margin was in 2016 that gave the state to Trump, and just 25,000 short of the margin that gave the state Biden in 2020. 

If we had like 500, or even 5000 votes for cease fire now, I'd be kinda laughing, not gonna lie. But 100,000+ is significant enough to shift the state. And I would highly advise Biden to use some tough diplomacy to rein Netanyahu in if this many americans are actually gonna stick their necks out and make this statement. Really, we NEED michigan. I mean let's go back to my latest prediction. Say we get everything up through Minnesota including NE2, idk how NE2 is actually gonna vote, Im doing an estimate, but let's assume Biden has 226 electoral votes. What's the easiest path to 270? Well, Pennslvania and Wisconsin are in precarious territory. But say Biden can win those. Ok, we got 245 with PA, and 255 with WI. We need 15 more. What's the best way forward from there? Well, that's where it gets HARD. Because then we face the red wall, a cliff of states where we need 4.5% or higher to win. AZ is the easiest one to flip, and it would bring us up to 266, from there, we'd still need another state. Or....we can just go for Michigan. Michigan is 15 electoral votes. 255+15 = 270 = gg no re. Ideally we would win TWO more states, especially since if NE2 defects we'd end up with a 269-269 tie, but assuming we win NE2, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, all we need is Michigan. And Michigan might actually be the path to least resistance. If we get PA and Wisconsin, we should be able to get Michigan too. If we don't, well need to rely on a southern state from the sun belt strategy clinton wanted, and that's highly reliable. Idk about you but Im not gonna put the fate of the country in Arizona, North Carolina, or Georgia. I'm just not. I mean, those arent states that typically vote dem. Michigan does often vote dem. But if they're pissed off at Biden over Gaza, and middle eastern voters make up enough of the state to ensure that we cant get it, well....that's really not good. 

So....if Biden is serious about winning, he needs to muzzle the Israeli war criminal NOW. I know that it's hard for him to actually negotiate a cease fire, but he should probably, at this point, threaten to pull funding like Reagan did that one time. If he doesn't, well, I'm not sure if he can win reelection. im not sure if he can win regardless, but this is a necessary step to bring Michigan within reach. If Biden cuts the deficit there in half from 4.8% to 2.4%, it would increase Biden's odds of winning the election from 11.5% all the way to 27.4%. Still not great, but it would help. 

If he doesnt do this, and we lose by because of Michigan in particular, and some slim margin of <100,000 then yeah, that loss would be preventable, and we're gonna look kinda stupid giving the country over to a fascist because Biden wouldnt appease left wing voters. I might not personally agree with this cause, but they are using the kinds of strategies i encouraged people to use in 2016 and 2020, rally around a cause, get out there and vote, and say "hey, we're voters, our votes are on the table, you need to do XYZ if you want me to vote for you next time." I hate that they're using THIS ISSUE to push this rather than something that actually helps Americans, but the voters of Michigan have spoken, and Biden ignores them at his own peril. That's just how it is.

EDIT: the final number seems closer to 100,000, not 125,000, but my point stands. That's roughly 2% of what the turnout in Michigan is likely to be in 2024, and while not significant enough by itself to shift the race given the current margins for Trump, it's still a very significant margin that could impact the outcome. And given, as I said, we NEED Michigan to win, and it's the most likely path to victory for us, we can't mess around here. The voters have spoken, Biden can either rise to the challenge or throw up to 100k votes away. That's how I see it. 

So how much racism should society tolerate?

 So the discussion last night on racism and SJWs got me thinking about how much we should tolerate racism as a society. Now, I'm going to warn you, before I actually get into my theory on this, i'm going to ask that you do not eat anything while reading this. Because I got a good analogy I wanna go with here, but it's kind of gross. Just trust me.

...

...okay, done with your food? Put it away? Good. Okay, so my theory for how much racism we should tolerate in society is based on my idea of the "FDA test". As we know, the Food Drug Administration puts legal limits of what...impurities can be put in our food. Now, you might ask, what kind of impurities are we talking about? Oh, you know, piece of bugs like cockroaches, rat poop, rat hair. Yeah. All of that stuff is in our food. But why is it in our food? Well, because, quite frankly, due to the nature of manufacturing food and putting out enough stuff, it's impossible to achieve a standard of having ZERO in it. It would be completely impractical for a company or other entity to produce things at a profit with a standard of ZERO defects. So what the FDA does is establish legal limits of what can be allowed. Ideally the amounts are small enough that they are not harmful to human health, and but large enough that companies can practically and profitably produce product. 

Leftists like SJWs, approach racism from a zero tolerance perspective. They have this idea that it's #1 that MUST be expunged from society at all costs, and they are willing to put all other practical considerations aside to do this. This leads to a form of radicalism on the subject I find distateful and stifling. I think we can all agree racism is bad. Just like rat feces, cockroaches, and other disgusting things that are found in our food are bad. It's disgusting, and if we have too much in our society, it can lead to bad consequences like systemic discrimination. 

But...at the same time, much like with reality with our food production, we kind of have to tolerate some level of that stuff, in order to achieve other goals. For example, and this is one thing I really rub against social justice activists the wrong way on, I support a free society with freedom of speech and thought. And that includes the right to be racist or sexist. I support a right to association, at least in the private sphere (I would argue in the public sphere, including commerce, that discrimination should be outlawed though). That might lead to people being discriminatory toward having associates of a different race or something. I think that we should hire people who are the best people for the job, or accept the smartest students into college. I think a lot of discrimination quite frankly happens on levels so informal that regulating such behavior may be more harmful than it's worth. Heck, that actually sums up my distaste with SJWs, they often push their way into private spheres of society with their social policing that they have no business pushing into and trying to regulate how people can act amongst themselves or others, and in doing so, violate their liberty in the process. 

We can, and absolutely should regulate racism when it can lead to negative consquences including lost rights or overt discrimination. All races deserve equal rights under the law. They deserve to not reasonably be discriminated against in business, both as customers, and as employees. I guess I would go so far to say they're entitled to not having an overtly hostile work environment as well, and that it is okay to fire racist employees for making others feel uncomfortable or unsafe on the job. There is a fine line between speech and harassment here, and I guess that the saying that the right that one can swing their fist ends at the beginning of another person's nose. So don't get me wrong. Systemic discrimination on a legal perspective is wrong. Discrimination in the workplace or in places of business is wrong. Everyone deserves equal rights and equal access to resources. Now, how far can we take that? Well, as far as is reasonable. Should we have mandated quotas, or affirmative action, or stuff like that? I'd say no. Should we have reparations or something like that? Also no. I think that if something becomes too burdensome on liberty or another higher, conflicting priority, that yeah, maybe sometimes a little racism has to be tolerated for the greater good. Again, it's like rat poop. No one WANTS it in their food but if a little ends up there and it's within FDA standards, eh....

I know, it's a disgusting analogy, but I think it's apt, because much like rat poop, we can likely agree that racism is disgusting and highly undesirable. But like everything else in life, there's nuance on everything. And there are conflicting priorities that we need to look out for, and if the costs of trying to eradicate racism come at the cost of another higher priority or run into some other practical roadblock, well, that's what we gotta tolerate.

Vaush's deranged take on AI art

 So....Vaush decided to double down on his terrible take on AI art, and this new one is a doozy. I mean, we've reached peak delusion with this one. Basically, he linked AI art to fascists and nazis. I mean....what?! Is this some sort of joke?! No. Watch the video, he literally does it. Well, what drugs is he on? None, ironically enough, just too much leftist ideology.

So what the heck is this guy on about? Well his argument is that fascists dont like artists. Artists end up being unconventional, free thinking and hard to control by authoritarian regime. Fascist art is often plain, like old greek and roman art but more "minecrafty" and completely lacking originality. Basically he sees Nazi art as soulless, and thinks that AI art is the same way. He thinks if old school nazis were still around, that they would LOVE AI art because they could just generate tons of soulless stuff for their own ends without having artists do it for them. 

I mean from that perspective I understand why dictators would like AI art but doesnt that apply to all dictators? Communists arent any better, they have the same soulless apartment blocks, and their "art" is basically just propaganda praising dear leader. Yes, even soviet art, which has good aesthetics. The only reason we westerners kinda like it is because it comes off as bad### because the soviets were played up to have this evil bad guy aesthetic and a lot of our own western pop culture (looking at you, goldeneye, command & conquer) hypes it up into something it's not and never was. I mean, dictators dont like creativity or novelty, that's not necessarily a strike against all AI art or its supporters or even tech bros. 

Heck I describe most tech bros who hype that stuff to be lib right silicon valley types. Those guys are cringe since they play up every fad (hence the comparisons to cryptocurrency and NFTs), and even I've kinda dunked on them over portraying AI as "t3h f00tur3!" and cringey "this stuff is inevitable" mentalities like that. But at the same time, I love AI. And here's why. Because if we ever wanna be liberated from work, we need technological advances in automation, which requires technological advances in things like AI and robotics. Which....is why I have to push back on Vaush. 

Here's the thing about Vaush. He has leftist brainworms. On the topic of fascism, he's deranged. You know how mccarthyists are obsessed with and paranoid about communism? Vaush is that about fascism. Just as a mccarthyist sees communism in LITERALLY EVERYTHING, so does he with fascism. Every election is, in his eyes, an eternal struggle against fascism in which we are simply to vote for the lesser evil so the fascists don't win. That's it. That's his whole perspective on voting. He's an SJW, and he just sees everything through this eternal struggle against fascism. Even if there is no clear fascist threat and a psychologist is asking him if the fascists he fears are in the room with him right now, he'll be screaming and warning people of them. He's deranged. And this comes from a social justice obsessed view of the world. 

And Vaush...is also a leftist. He's also some sort of like anarcho communist or something, and let's face it. Leftists, valorize, human labor. As I said in my last post on Pakman's discussion on the conflict between SJWs and marxists, leftists can't get away from the eternal struggle of the working class against the boourgeoisie. More liberal types, ie, labor democrats actually hate automation, because automation means no jobs. No jobs means no leverage against the ruling class, since to them, their power comes from their labor. They withhold their labor as a means to force concessions out of the ruling class, and if the ruling class automates their jobs, they see themselves as screwed. They view AI as associated with tech bros, and tech bro mindsets with the ruling class. THis is why, for example, they hated Andrew Yang. Because despite believing the same thing I do more or less, because he came from a more upper class perspective based on entrepreneurship and startups and stuff, they're automatically skeptical of that. They HATE that. And Vaush has had deranged takes on Yang and UBI in the past too, because again, leftie brainworms. 

Marxist types also have a similar perspective. Their ideology is tied inexorably to the so called "labor theory of value." The value of work inevitably belongs to the worker, and employers steal surplus value. When Vaush hates AI, it's because we're replacing artists, who typically arent as alienated from their work as other workers as art requires creativity, and replacing it with a machine that devalues it and produces stuff at near zero marginal cost, that simply doesnt have creativity to it. Of course, to me, this isn't always bad. And given the limitations of AI and AI art at this time, I dont think actual artists have to fear their jobs being taken just yet. Like, as someone who WANTS this massive automation wave to throw everyone out of work all at once forcing us to have a reckoning with the concept, I dont think this is actually gonna happen. Jobism is just too entrenched and the ruling class would rather make up new BS jobs out of thin air keeping us all working rather than having the conversation I want us to have as a society. But yeah, leftists are jobists, and they see inherent value in people working and producing things with labor. They just dislike how capitalists and capitalism "alienate" workers in this process by forcing them to work for them, and if only we had socialism where workers owned the means of production, everything would be fine. 

So...that's how I view Vaush's takes here. Vaush hates generative AI because he believes in solidarity with workers. He inherently  believes in the gospel  of work in some form, he just tends to take a leftist aesthetic with it and hates that something not human and potentially owned by capitalists could potentially displace unalienated workers in artistic fields from their art. 

Again, maybe this is my own bias betraying me and my own ideological brainworms, but I see vaush's perspective as very flawed, ignorant, and ideologically tainted. There's nothing inherently fascist about AI art, although there is a lot to say about this guy's opposition of it.

And keep in mind, I dont actually like tech bros either. It is possible to be too bullish on tech trends to the point of being cringey, and acting like AI art is some end all be all is a form of that cringe. It's interesting, but it isnt perfect, and it's going to take years, if not decades, to actually be to a point of fully replacing human artists, if it ever will reach that state. Like honestly? here's the thing with AI. Like, I'm autistic. And I dont always grasp things intuitively. I'm overly logical, I take things too literally, and things get lost in translation. AI is like that, but on steroids. It's ALL logic. It's trained via algorithms to do things, and sometimes it doesnt work. Sometimes it doesnt know how to translate things into practice, like it might give hands more fingers,or humans extra limbs. Because the algorithms say yes, humans have limbs but then it tends to struggle to produce the right number, especially when humans are in complex poses where the whole thing isn't visible. And in my limited experience with AI, like, I was gonna have an AI do a blog post about taking all our jobs and then it wasnt even competent enough to do that and just gave me a bullet list about workplace retraining. Like, AI is terrible that stuff. It has ZERO sense of intuition. It has zero sense of creativity. It's a perfectly logical thinking machine, and sometimes that has flaws. It cant relate to the human experience like a human can. Things that we grasp, it doesnt. Like as I said, sometimes we autistic people have relatively minor deficits in this stuff. We take things too literally, we tend not to grasp certain nuance, but autistic people are still human, and we still kinda get it. AI doesn't. AT ALL. It's just garbage in, garbage out. It's not even real intelligence, it's just simulated intelligence.

So....as long as this is the state of AI, we have nothing to worry about. And yeah techbros are overselling this stuff hard. our robot overlords  arent coming to free us from work any time soon, unfortunately. We'll see it replacing tasks more and more in coming decades, but will we see some job apocalypse? probably not. It will still be painful for the displaced without a change to our social institutions, but the world will go on. And that's my honest take.

As such, I like AI, I dont have a fixation on it, I would like to see this developed, and I dont see this as a threat to anything at all. And leftist brainworms just lead to weird and outlandish takes on things. Like an AI artist painting a picture of a woman with 3 hands and 6 fingers on each hand. Leftism: not even once. 

Discussing Pakman's discussion of the fracturing of the left

 So David Pakman said today that there is a fracture on the left between the Marxist anticapitalist types and the woke social justice types. And I kind of have to say....no crap.

This has been a thing since 2016. This is actually one of the big divisions within the democratic party in 2016 between the Hillary types, who were identity obsessed social justice types, and Bernie supporters, who were more typical leftist types. 

And the tensions were on display there. The democrats basically used postmodernism and social justice ideology to divide the left, and castigate the Bernie left as not being progressive enough on racism and acting like we were a bunch of racist, sexist, privileged neanderthals. Which is a huge reason why I became so alienated and jaded from those guys in coming years, because they kind of are radicals. 

And yes, there are some leftists who are both. Anti capitalist movements often have a zero tolerance toward people who aren't also compatible with "intersectionality" and many will choose to put intersectionality above their own ideals, stating that we cant leave underprivileged people behind in pursuit of their goals. As a result, they rarely get much done because they get so bogged down in obsession with identity that it hamstrings the entire movement from focusing on ANYTHING ELSE.

Yeah. As you can tell, I'm not very sympathetic to these guys. it really does come down to the fact that these guys are purity testy AF and tend to suck the air out of the room allowing for discussion on literally ANYTHING ELSE. Everything must be subverted to the social justice cause in their minds or it is bad. It's the #1 reason I myself turned against these guys. The #2 reason being their radical illiberal nutcases whose extremism threatens free society, but that's also an outcropping of #1. ALL must be subverted to their ideals or destroyed to make way for them. 

As a matter of fact, I dont see many people pushing back from the Marxist left. You have stupidpol I guess, but yeah. Now, I dont like these people either. Because they're also a bunch of radicals. I mean, dont get me wrong, I like the aesthetics of class struggle. i think, IN MODERATION some level of struggle between the working and ownership classes is a good thing. But I tend to approach it from a more LIBERAL perspective, not wanting to overturn capitalism itself, but merely have reforms that fix the relationship between the two. In a more traditional form this is stuff like unions, although my approach to indepentarianism and left libertarianism shows some level of solidarity to the working class. Now, dont get me wrong, I diverge a lot from left wing labor movements, even liberal ones, because many of them fetishize labor. The problem with these movements is they cant see a world beyond class struggle, their whole perspective is defined in it, and they seem to struggle to figure out the "now what", after. Its like leftists want perpetual class struggle and if they ever win, they have a massive existential crisis and/or devolve into literal communism and all the negatives associated with that. Meanwhile, being a problem SOLVER, I kinda wanna, ya know, solve the problem, not savor the moment in sisyphusian struggle because I see that as pointless, and move beyond this stuff. I want freedom as power to say no, and a form of left libertarianism in which people arent forced to labor at all. But again, because of leftie brainrot, many of these people dont seem to want to win, or if they do their ideas are terrifying, they find more value in the struggle itself than the solution and struggle to adjust to a world beyond it. 

As such, while I have MORE sympathy with class struggle over identity politics, I understand that grievance politics are only legitimate when they have an actual clearly defined problem with a clearly defined solution that's actually feasible. For me, I think in terms of the problem solving approach to politics, I define problems, I propose solutions to fix the problem, and then hopefully i can move on. I long for a world in which all of my ideas are implemented, so that I can actually be conservative and defend them from all challengers, or at best propose mild fixes like a third way democrat wants to our existing system. I want my ideas to be status quo, so that I can defend that status quo and go on about how great things are, and oppose attempts to change the system for the worse. That's my end goal. 

And honestly, while I dont really consider David Pakman to be a socdem but one of those third way libs, I am more sympathetic to the socdem or social libertarian approach to politics than I am either form of leftism. Because Im not a radical, I mean, I guess I am, but I'm simultaneously moderate. Point is, I'm not part of the current radical left. I'm much closer to a liberal or socdem than I am a Marxist or postmodernist. 

On social justice issues, I've defined my ideology of just being a radical flaming centrist. A full on liberal. Not a leftist, not a conservative. On economics, I'm left of liberal, but right of the far left, and kind of in my own third camp. I want a lot of progressive change, but nothing that would destroy capitalism altogether. 

So, I guess to answer David's question about where I stand, I'd rank the 3 factions as 

1) liberalism/social democracy

2) Marxism

3) postmodernism

 I'm TOTALLY against postmodernists at this point and dont sympathize at all. Vs marxists, i agree capitalism has problems, but dont agree with their radical solutions. And while I think many liberals and socdems are too moderate, Im probably closer to them than leftists these days. In reality, I'm kind of in the same place I've been for the past decade, with very little movement in any direction other than a seething hatred for the identity politics left. 

Discussing the dangers of radicalism

 So, I found Aaron Bushnell's (dude who set himself on fire) reddit account. No, I won't post it. Not gonna dox him, even if dead, but....I do have some things to say about it. 

This dude was....a radical. He was a leftist, an SJW, an anarchist, and he had crazy takes even by those guys standards. And I cant say Im surprised, given the dude was so extreme he would set himself on fire, but I just can't help but think if this dude was just a little different, that he would take people out with him. Ya know, like a suicide bomber or something.

Radicalism is bad. It's fine to have strong convictions, but when it gets to the point you're a danger to yourself and/or others, that goes too far. This dude was fully brainwashed into the far left's cult. And let me be blunt, Im not saying this to sound like a right winger. As I said, the far left has a lot in common with fundamentalist right wing christianity. Marxism and critical theory act almost like a secular religion for these people. And this dude just decided to die on the hill of Palestine, literally, in the most horrible way possible just about. 

It's fine to entertain ideas. It's fine to look at the left's ideas, to look at their strengths and weaknesses, to entertain them, and maybe even accept them to some degree, WHILE STILL REMAINING CRITICAL OF THEM. I mean, I lean left myself. Im significantly more moderate than he was, but I cant say leftist ideas have had NO impact on my views, I just rein that stuff in by also being pragmatic and countering it with other ideas.

What causes radicalism is the adoption of one set of ideas to the exclusion of all else. It's not just leftism, the right has the same problem with the christian nationalism nonsense. And I could go on about anarcho capitalists, and marxisms, and religious nuts, blah blah blah, they're all different flavors of the same root problem of extreme, dogmatic views in an ideology that go well beyond the realm of reality. When you adopt a set of ideas, with no counterbalancing moderating ideas to offset them, you run the risk of taking that set of ideas to the furthest possible extremes. And eventually, setting yourself on fire, or committing terrorism, suddenly sounds like a good idea. And that's what happened here. Now, let's be frank, Bushnell is NOT a terrorist, he did NOT engage in violent action toward others. Thankfully, he only set HIMSELF on fire. But others like him could behave differently. And that kind of self sacrifice is still adjacent to terrorism. It's better, dont get me wrong, at least he aint taking people out with him, but ya know, one extra small step and he could have. Heck, some people have gone down that route. The psycho who shot up Joel Osteen's church had "free palestine" on her gun. And as we know, in the opening weeks of the conflict a lot of people both ways have committed horrible acts toward each other. I even had to write an article about THAT. 

So yeah, try not to radicalize. Try to counter your most extreme ideas with some pragmatism once in a while. Try to understand that 99.9%+ of the time that these ideas arent worth dying over, much less killing each other over. To see a guy, this normal guy in a military uniform just go to a spot, light himself on fire, and boom 20 seconds later hes either dead or unconscious, is just....insane to me. Like one minute he's there, the next he isn't. And for what? A conflict half the world away that doesn't even concern him directly? Again, to me this is insane. This crap aint worth it. What a horrible waste. 

Discussing conservatives, racism, and liberal/leftist purity testing

 So, there was a question on a forum I'm on asking if all Trump supporters and conservatives are racist. The most common response was "maybe not but they're all okay with racism!" which is just more self righteous social justice screeching. So I wanted to give my opinion on this as an ex conservative.

First of all, are all conservatives racist? No. Especially pre Trump. The old school wing of the GOP may have done dog whistle politics but through the 90s-2010s, there was a period where they seemed to explicitly not be racist institutionally. They largely avoided the race issue and had the belief that, much like I have, that racism is a heart issue. 

Now, does that mean that none of them were racist? No. The voter base has always been significantly more racist than the politicians. George W. Bush and the like tried to avoid delving into racism. So did John McCain and Mitt Romney. Race seemed to be a salient issue in 2008, but honestly, I tried to avoid leaning into that. I know some said crazy stuff like he was some Muslim born in Kenya and obvious xenophobia, but I felt like a lot of conservatives, myself included, tried to avoid leaning into that stuff. Still there were questions as to how much HE would bring race into the conversation given his association with reverend wright, etc. If anything, a lot on the right kinda realize it's the left who is race obsessed and has to turn everything into a racial issue, and a lot of concerns were more related to that fact, including a lot of the rumors and misinformation. A lot of people thought his father being Kenyan, for example, and him being associated with radical black preacher Reverend Wright, meant that he would be more radical ideologically and that he was masking his true views to be elected. Still, the people who seemed OVERTLY racist always came off as a minority to me, or at least a plurality. Like AT MOST half, and probably less than half. I live in the northeast which is generally less racist than say, Alabama though.

It should also be noted racism is a spectrum. As liberals and leftists will point out, if you really dig deeply enough, going as far as say, Harvard implicit test results, you can find racism in just about anyone. But as far as how many are true die hard racists, probably a small minority. I never really knew any as a conservative. Very few people are/were actually hardcore white supremacists or KKK members. Now, a lot of older people in particular, are often casual racists. Like an archie bunker type racist. Like they'll say horribly bigoted things behind closed doors but they also may hold a host of egalitarian beliefs as well like believing that all races should be legally equal. 

I don't have any stats on what I'd consider in every category, but I'd probably be inclined to say 10% of people or 20% of conservatives are probably die hard racist, many others are versions of casual racist, and again, casual racism and egalitarianism can coexist with many people. Just because people hold bad beliefs doesnt mean that they don't also sometimes hold good ones as well. People are multifaceted, and before I go into liberals and the left, I think it's important to understand that. It IS a spectrum, and maybe few people are truly "not racist" by a leftist's purity standards. The left does treat racism as this original sin that must be expunged at all costs and if you're not on board with their stuff, you're evil and racist. 

Which brings me to the next point, the idea that "they might not all be racist but they are all okay with racism." This is an irritating, self righteous statement that comes from people I personally deem radicals. These guys are postmodernists, or critical theorists, who have decided to make this the one singular top issue of our time, and anyone who dares defy them is bad. And these are the guys who I dont get along with. Because quite frankly, they purity test me, and I dont pass their purity tests. Because I dont care about this issue a lot and care more about them getting all up in my face about it with their shaming behavior, rather than the issue itself. Those guys would say I'm "okay with racism" and honestly, maybe by their standards, I am. Because to me, I'm just not all that motivated to care. I consider myself egalitarian by law, I'm at least aware of privilege and those concepts, but beyond that, I'm not gonna die on that hill. 

The fact is, I could just as easily say those guys might not be anti UBI, but they're okay with someone who isn't for UBI. or they might not be anti universal healthcare, but they might be okay with someone who isn't. And at the end of the day, those liberals and leftists WILL be okay with voting for some centrist candidate who is complicit with our system of wage slavery. They dont care about the liberation of all of humanity, and they care more about their petty identity politics than about my stuff. See? I can play that toxic game too.

The fact is, I really DONT think race should be this end all be all issue. As long as someone isnt an overt racist piece of crap, who advocates for taking away the rights of minorities, then I'm not particularly going to care about how they feel about this issue. If anything, I find these self righteous activists who demand everyone else care about this issue as much as them to be offputting. I quite frankly dont care what your stance is as long as you're not pushing it on others. That applies both to the right and the left. 

Now, as far as hardcore racists go, ya know, like neo nazis, KKK members, people who are very motivated on this issue in a racist way, I'll be blunt, F those people. I want nothing to do with such people. The left is right in opposing them. But lets face it, that's a minority of conservatives, even in the trump era. Most conservatives are far more moderate, and as long as they keep their views to themselves, I couldnt care what they think, nor would I shame them for voting Trump just based on that.

To be fair, i find supporting trump in 2024 to be a red flag in general, but there's a lot more to it than that. Like being okay with insurrection and treason, the erosion of democracy, possibly being a christian nationalist, ya know? I dont like people who wanna push their bullcrap on me regardless of what it is. But let's face it, these same libs were saying this same stuff about trump voters being racist in 2016, and going back to 2016, eh...I'm fine with people who voted trump that year depending on the reason. We cant let this one single issue define the entirety of a person's perspective, and honestly, I think that he had some economic populist vibes that resonated quite well in the rust belt where I live back then. I dont get the same vibe in 2024 from him AT ALL, so being a trump voter is FAR more of a red flag now than it was back then, but yeah, as you can tell, the issue is very multifaceted, and I'm more concerned about his erosion of democracy and the principles of liberty rather than this specific issue of race. 

So I guess there is a lot I find deplorable in 2024 trump supporters. The racism is just topping on the cake though. Trump is a threat to democracy and a danger to civil liberties for all people, and particularly to all underprivileged groups. He should be opposed based on that. 

But yeah, there's more to this than just race at this point, and if the race thing is still issue #1, I have to wonder about your priorities too. 

Like really, if the race issue could just go away, with the actual hardcore racist being a virtual pariah but with other perspectives being at least tolerated, that would be great. I think being against literal nazis is low hanging fruit every decent person should abide by. That doesnt mean I'm literally an extremist on this issue though. The left gets a bit too self righteous and starts going on about how we need to purge all racism and everyone needs to do their part like they're absolving themselves of original sin, and it gets ridiculous.

Let's face it, the left is no bastion of being completely nonracist either. A lot of centrists have racist tendencies and even racist policies and yet people suddenly ignore that stuff when it's their side doing it. But then they'll start weaponizing that crap against other factions who arent big on social justice like the Bernie people, people like me, etc., and let's face it, a lot of us dont particularly care either.

Going back to Trump supporters though, can you be not racist and a trump supporter? Perhaps. I think that being a trump voter is a red flag in 2024 though. In 2016 I was willing to let bygones be bygones, I mean, the dude had some economic populist appeal, but in 2024, there is the fact that Trumpers just seem more extreme now. They are more anti democratic, more authoritarian, more christian nationalist, and more racist. heck, on right wing racists, those guys need to go outside and touch some serious grass. Because how freaking pathetic is your life that your number one issue is hating people who LOOK differently than you do? I mean holy crap. Imagine that being the hill you die on. For all the crap I give the SJWs for their obsession with the issue, at least they somewhat mean well, actual nazis are some of the biggest losers on the political spectrum IMO. Still, again, I will be inclined to say that those guys are thankfully a minority. it is disturbing they're growing in influence as much as they are though. But yeah I still wouldnt automatically say that every trump supporter is racist. They might be in a coalition with racists, but that doesn't mean they share those views. And I'm not gonna demand people be social justice activists on issues where they HAVE to be shamed for that, because people are complex, and not everyone sees the issue from that one singular lens. Hopefully they would distance themselves from such people if given the chance though...because let's face it, agreeing with or endorsing such people is cringe. But I do understand that in a two party system, you're gonna inevitably end up in the same coalition with people you don't like. Like, I end up in a coalition with democrats, and as you guys have probably figured out, I have serious disagreements with virtually every flavor of democrat out there. So why do I support them? Lack of options, understanding not everyone is gonna agree with me 100%. If a non racist republican approaches the GOP the same way, that's perfectly fair. Not all the voters deserve to be criticized for crappy things other members of the coalition do.

I'm sorry but setting yourself on fire as a protest is monumentally stupid

 Some guy decided to set himself on fire outside of the Israeli embassy protest the Gaza and died as a result....

.....and the protests get dumber and dumber. 

Look, idk who people think they're kidding with this stuff, but these kinds of protests are monumentally dumb. I know some people think it's "so brave" and that its sending a statement, but to a lot of people, no it's just dumb. 

Seriously, dont kill yourself for a cause like this. Especially a cause that you have no skin in the game in in the first place. It's such an unfathomably terrible idea idk why people do it. For attention? Do they care so much they'll just randomly commit suicide in a highly visible way just to prove a point? 

Again, it doesn't resonate, it doesnt make me feel sympathetic, it's just dumb. I dont really like how Israel is behaving in the gaza situation either at this point, but these protests they're doing to make a point, like inconveniencing others by standing in the middle of roads, and screaming people down, and harassing public figures at conferences, and now setting themselves on fire, it's dumb. It doesn't make me sympathetic to you. What makes me sympathetic to you is the logical arguments that netanyahu is going too far. This stuff is counterproductive and just makes you look deranged. Anyone can kill themselves over a cause, and most people will think you're brainwashed or stupid for doing it. 

Really, this is a serious problem with the progressive left lately. It makes us look bad. Like we're a bunch of deranged psychos. Seriously, no one cares. Learn better ways to get your point across. These weirdo protest methods are just mental illness. Stop it. Seriously, this stuff turns off the ex conservative side of me so hard. No one is listening, no one cares. Find better ways to get your point across than this.

Sorry, blue MAGA, but Trump DOMINATED in South Carolina

 The amount of cope I'm seeing coming from the democrats lately is astounding. Now they're saying that the republican base might be divided because Trump ONLY won South Carolina by 60% vs Haley's 40%. 

Look, we've run stats before. A 20 point lead is a BLOWOUT. Let's be honest. And while it does show that there are diverging opinions within the republican party, let's be real. This was Nikki Haley's last stand. This was south carolina, her home state. This was the big win she was looking for. She NEEDED to WIN here to prove that she would be viable. Because it's all downhill from here. You think other states that she's not from would like her MORE? Odds are they'll like her LESS. And she'll do 70-30 or 80-20 in them. 

I guess people are comparing it to Biden's dictatoresque 96% wins and stuff like that. Maybe so. There is more divergence on the right than the left. Of course, on the right the primary is more open while biden is the incumbent on the left. And incumbents normally dont face ANY challenges at all. Honestly, there is little to no appetite in the democratic party to dump biden despite concerns about age. Because most of those concerns come not from the loyal rank and file voters, but from independents and less aligned liberals like myself who lean left but dont like the democratic party. And while some of these people (including me) might be making a lot of noise, the actual mathematical reality is most people in the democratic party who vote like Biden. 

We'll see what 2028 looks like, but Trump winning 60-40 in his opponent's home state is nothing less by a decisive victory. And we need to stop acting like it isn't. It's basically copium. People are basically saying this because they have some idea that those 40% arent gonna back trump in the general, when in reality, most probably will. You might have some defectors, but a lot of those guys are....independents who registered to vote in the primary, or right leaning independents who are loosely affiliated with the republican party, much like i am with the democrats. As in, they lean that way but arent loyal. 

Odds are, many of these people will vote for RFK or some "no labels" alternative like a Dean Phillips/Nikki Haley ticket being floated. But they wont vote for Biden. Just like those of us on the right won't vote for Trump, but might like RFK, Dean Phillips, or Cornel West/Jill Stein. 

So....who are we kidding? Look at the actual polls. Who is winning in the actual polls? Republicans, and by large margins. This is the reddest presidential election I've seen in my life time that I can remember. Keep in mind, Trump won last time by statistical fluke, and 2000 and 2004 were very close wins for the GOP. The GOP hasnt had a major blowout since 1988. And I was like an infant then. So, let's be real. These nuimbers, not good for democrats. And the democrats need to get their heads out of the sand. Their reality denial is concerning. 

This isnt to say Biden isnt the best person for the job, empirically he is. And democrats do significantly worse with another nominee. So despite people saying they want someone different, the second anyone is named, the coalition implodes and the GOP does even better. 

This is a problem. let's not deny it. Let's not sit in our own little world acting like that this isn't the case, and Biden is actually in a strong position, and the trump coalition is two seconds from imploding. I mean, it could, but what would do that isn't nikki haley. It's trump's 91 felony charges turning into convictions. If you want to destroy trump electorally, get the ball rolling on those court cases. Stop this small stuff like $300 million lawsuits. That's devastating to him financially, yes, but we need more if we want to destroy him electorally.