Failed female candidates of Georgia now have dueling voter organizations

Failed Georgia Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler has started a voter registration and voter integrity group to rival failed Georgia Democrat Stacy Abrahams voter registration and voter access group.

Former candidate Stacy Abrams (Left) & former Senator Loeffler (right)

The history

Democrat Stacy Abrams ran for Governor of Georgia in 2018 and lost to Republican Brian Kemp by about 55,000 votes. Finally acknowledging that she “didn’t win”, Abrams maintained that she “didn’t lose” as a way of expressing her belief in conspiracy theories that voter suppression and voter integrity laws cost her the title that she otherwise legitimately won from the voters (Abrams never conceded). After the defeat, Abrams went and did something about it and started two organizations to increase Democrat voter registration and attack Georgia voter fraud prevention laws to get them changed in a more favorable direction for Democrats. Her efforts succeeded and she is largely credited for Biden winning Georgia in the 2020 presidential election and both Democrat candidates for senate winning their runoff elections two months later.

Republican Kelly Loeffler was appointed to the senate by the victor in Stacy Abrams losing race for Governor, Brian Kemp, in 2019. The sitting senator Johnny Isakson announced that he would resign at the end of that year, citing health reasons, and in accordance with Georgia law, the Governor appoints a replacement to that senatorial term. Conservatives and President Donald Trump wanted Georgia Representative Doug Collins, who helped lead the House opposition to Trump’s first failed impeachment by Democrats but Governor Kemp chose businesswoman Kelly Loeffler who would have to defend the seat in the next years election in where both Georgia senate seats would be on the ballot. In November 2020, both Republicans, Loeffler and Perdue, won reelection, however, Georgia election law (along with 9 other states) dictates that candidates must get a minimum of 50 percent of the votes to be declared winners, and neither of the winning Republicans cleared that 50% hurdle due to multiple Republicans on the ballot splitting their vote. That triggered a runoff in January 2021 where the two senate seats got voted on again – and this time – both Republicans who won 2 months prior, lost to both Democrat opponents. Some key lies about the Republican candidates lyingly spread by their opponents and un-checked on the same social media outlets that just weeks prior were treating election misinformation as an issue they needed to correct, but those types of smears abetted by big corporations are typical. What was atypical of this election was the Republican stupidity in mixing their messages about the alleged fraud in the presidential election with a failed organized Get-out-the-vote effort as well as the most vocal lawyer fighting on behalf of investigation of the 2020 fraud claims condemning the Republican senate candidates. Regardless of the big tech election interference, Democratic smears, and Republican in-fighting idiocy, Stacy Abrams efforts in new voter registration and Georgian election law changes were again credited with the Democrats historic victory.

Loeffler’s new Georgia Voter Org

After Loeffler’s loss, I wondered if she would be useless and go back to the business world or if she would do exactly-this and try to do something about the reasons she thinks she lost. One month later and she has done the latter, starting an organization to promote election integrity and make future elections in the state more secure.

Loeffler’s organizations main goals will be doing the reverse of Abrhams Leftist group.

Abram’s organization, New Georgia Project (NGP), was founded to register Leftist and Democrat-leaning voters. Abrams other group “Fair Fight” was founded on the premise that rules around vote integrity are actually Democrat-voter suppression and focuses on challenging election laws and procedures to relax voting securities and other barriers.

Loeffler’s group “Greater Georgia” was founded on the premise that Democratic legal victories around voting rules are Republican-voter suppression and will focus on registering “conservative-leaning” voters and seek to promote “election transparency and uniformity”.

The objective of Loeffler’s Greater Georgia is to assure Georgians “that their voices are heard when they cast their ballot,” Loeffler said in a statement referencing the accusations of cheating and fraud around the Georgia 2021 runoff election.

Next move?

Due to the resignation that spawned Loeffler’s senate appointment, her opponent Raphael Warnock was only elected to the remaining time in that senate seats term, so instead of serving a full 6 year first time, Warnock will have to defend his seat again in the 2022 midterm election. Loeffler has not stated whether she will file to run against him in a rematch. Hopefully she won’t, since she was a terrible senator but she hasn’t ruled it out.

At the time of this writing, the Democrat who bested her in the election is being investigated for voter registration fraud for actions taken as board chairman for New Georgia Project, Stacey Abrams’ voter registration organization, in 2019. The Georgia State Election Board voted unanimously to investigate the allegations against Warnock and the Abrams group under evidence that it did not follow election law guidelines and further, “sought to register ineligible, out-of-state, or deceased voters”.

Loeffler’s group says it wants to expand voter registration to more communities with plans to reach out to groups that aren’t traditional Republican allies and reform elections by removing secretive fraud-shielding practices and policies with transparency measures and reforms as well bringing uniformity to elections so that county by county standards don’t differ so widely, which confuses voters and provides another shield for fraud in elections.

In response, Stacy Abrams just smears her new competition in the most bad-faith nonsensical botching of a clapback one could imagine.

Abrams, enjoying the victories of her hard work in turning Georgia blue with the support of key corporate press assistance in legitimizing her election conspiracy theories, denounced Loeffler’s group as a “conspiracy theory” itself… Of course. The incoherence of the condemnation is something to note in its own right. Abrams said on CNN:

“It’s deeply disheartening that a former US Senator would spend her time and her resources to publicly engage in the type of conspiracy theories that say that only certain Americans should be valued. That’s what Kelly Loeffler is proposing.”

That’s obviously not anything similar to anything that resembles what Loeffler is proposing, but it also doesn’t make any sense. It was delivered in a live interview on tv, so it’s probable that Abrams merely botched the prepared talking point and, one assumes, meant to allude to conspiracy theories about Georgian voter fraud in both the 2020 and 2021 elections. Instead, Abrams called “only believing certain Americans should be valued” a “conspiracy theory”, which… might be a theory someone somewhere has (though it’s not something Loeffler’s group ever said or implied but expressly states the opposite of) but lacks any “conspiracy”. Unless Abrams maybe meant to have said that Loeffler is conspiring to make some Americans valued less? Which would make Abrams the theorist and Loeffler the conspirer… who knows man.

It will be interesting to see how these dueling politicians and their competing voter organizations play out in the political theaters coming up.

The senators from Georgia are TERRIBLE. And should win. (but won’t)

In the 2020 election, both of the state of Georgia’s senate seats in Washington were on the ballot and Republicans kept the Senate by winning both of those state seats. But not so fast… Georgia law says you can’t just win, you have to SUPER-win – meaning, it’s not enough to just get the most votes – if the winning candidates don’t get over 50%, then they have to run again in a run-off election in January. And that’s what’s happened. and now (at the time of this writing) it is January. and both candidates are poised to win but probably won’t but she should, even though they’re terrible…

I can explain…

The 2 Democrats running against them are worse. They offer no improvement over their Republican challengers in any way that isn’t strictly ideological, and they are both woke talking-point peddling liars. That’s not to say that the existing Republicans “deserve” to win though – just that they should because they are politically better as they are more likely to vote against Biden administration agenda items like tax increases, more regulations that control our behavior in the name of some “its for the children!” type of emotional appeal (though, with the infantilization of minorities, the “for the children” part has been typically replaced with a patronizing “for these poor racial groups that don’t know any better”), and of course – the real reason the deep state ensured a Biden victory: BOMBS. Absolutely gotta bomb some third world countries (which I predict will start within Biden’s first month in office).

That’s obvious though. Most people know that. What most people don’t know is how bad these Republican candidates are so that’s much more interesting to me.

Here are some briefings on why they’re so terrible:

Kelly Loeffler

I’m not a mind reader, so I don’t know why Kelly Loeffler wants to be a United States senator, but that’s also the problem is that – I would have to be a mind reader to know why Kelly Loeffler wants to be a United States senator…

She isn’t an economics-issue’s Republican, anti-war Republican, culture-war Republican, or “stick it to the Dems” antagonistic Republican (which are the main factions of the outgoing Trump administration). She’s just… a Republican. The vibe I get from her is that of a housewife that wants to “be involved” and would normally put this energy into a local Parent Teachers Association or Home Owners Association but since she’s wealthy, decided to go into the senate instead.

Glenn Greenwald captures some of these qualities perfectly in these tweets:

Loeffler was appointed to her senate seat by the Republican Governor of the state even though President Trump and grassroots conservatives wanted congressman Doug Jones instead. In her brief 1 year in the senate after this appointment, her biggest headline making moment was to be investigated for insider trading after suspicious stock investment moves that appeared to be influenced by knowledge she obtained from her position as a senator before the public knew the same information.

We don’t know if that’s valid or just looked suspicious but who cares because of all her other not-good qualities for the position.

David Perdue

What a shmuck this guy is. He’s all the emptiness of Loeffler except he’s been in there longer, doing nothing useful longer, plus he still has the same exact negative regarding the insider trading accusation. lolWTF?

While Perdue’s Democrat opponent Jon Ossoff keeps lying on the campaign trail and would be (will be?) a terrible senator that won’t represent the people of Georgia accurately at all – Perdue is a coward, a phony, and evidently – a crook. Not evident by the accusation of such as that happens to everyone – but by his lack of defense. Ossoff called him a crook to his face at the debate – a bold move for a crook and a liar to make – but came out looking like a hero because Perdue was just like “oh wut-everrr” (that’s a synopsis – not an actual quote). Perdue didn’t like being called out so bluntly in that debate that he didn’t show up to the next one, which gave Ossoff the chance to just rattle off every talking point in his Notes app completely unchallenged. lol. Great. What possible excuse could there be for this? I can think of none, but I shouldn’t have to think of any because Perdue should have made it known. He didn’t make a valid excuse known because he didn’t have one. Coward.

I hope he doesn’t lose because senators are just vote-bots and he would vote for better policies than Ossoff, but if/when he does lose – he will have earned the defeat. Loser.

Thousands on Twitter misunderstand “800 for Trump”

Summary: Tens of thousands of Twitter users misunderstood reporting about Georgia’s Floyd County recount revealing “800 for Trump” when it was featured as a trend on the platform, and mercilessly mocked and bullied Trump supporters in a straw man fallacy over their own mistake. Twitter didn’t correct them.

Math is hard (*not sarcasm) – however…

I admit that I am comically bad at math, myself. But I also don’t mock others for being bad at math. Glass houses and all.

I was not one of the people dunking on Brian Williams and Mara Gay and MNBC’s producers for covering a tweet that claimed a massive mathematical falsehood, endorsing it as true, and no one down the line realizing the mistake they were making in misunderstanding the numbers in front of them. The tweet they all thought was so profound was a blue-check-mark saying “Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The U.S. population is 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over.” -Which most people immediately laughed at but I admit that when I first read it, I was like “so what’s the error?” for a solid way-longer-than-I-should-have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqJCeY8cD0

After a minute my brain caught up to realize that “500 million” isn’t “1 million, 500 times” the way the author and pundits thought – it’s one dollar 500 million times (about enough to give every American $1.53).

However… The issue so many people got wrong about Georgia’s recount isn’t just a misunderstanding of math at play like the pundits in that MSNBC flub. This time, nearly 100% of the tweets making the math mistake were using that mistaken perception to ridicule Trump and Trump supporters, often accusing both of the thing they were actually guilty of (also called Narcissistic Projection).

What happened in Georgia

In Georgia, a statewide recount of votes in the presidential election was started over the weekend and on Monday (November 16th) revealed that over 2,600 votes in Floyd County had not been counted. 

The blame for how this happened lays in an unknowable area in between human error, human intent, and the error or intent in the system of Dominion tabulating machines (the same system Trump alleged was falsely tabulating votes against him)… Specifically – a human evidently failed to load a memory stick for the tabulations of an entire voting machine and this was only found out a week after the election and only because of the scrutiny happening from the required recount. So opinions will vary between human accident, human intent, and a flawed system by Dominion that allows such an error by a poll taker to occur.

https://twitter.com/scrowder/status/1328491935288397824

At the time of this writing, the statewide recount is still going on, with the deadline for completion being before Thursday (11:59 p.m. Wednesday).

The Error…

Local source, Coosa Valley News, reported that of the 2,631 ballots, “that it appeared that between 1,600 and 1,900 were cast for President Trump.” – which means that the votes that would have been left uncounted had this scrutiny not happened, favored Trump nearly 2 to 1.

Democrats on Twitter misunderstood that math, thinking the report was the opposite: that the roughly 800 votes for Biden in that batch of nearly 2,000 were a measly 800 votes for Trump.

“800 for Trump”

So many people on Twitter were tweeting mocking-LOL posts that the recount Trump supporters wanted in the state of Georgia was actually yielding over a thousand new votes for Biden and only 800 for Trump that “800 for Trump” started trending. “Trending” pages are created by Twitter editors to highlight round-ups of tweets with words and phrases that are in current high volume.

Featuring this in the side panel like that led to even more people posting with the same misunderstanding of what “net votes” means and of course none of them checked the math on their confirmation bias causing the repetition of the math error to appear in tens of thousands of tweets and retweets.

The correct response, even with this misunderstanding, is to be glad that new votes were counted that otherwise would have – not just to pretend to like Democracy when all you really care about is your candidate of choice winning – but also because this doesn’t change your candidate of choice still being the winner (so far) so there is nothing in it for you to gloat on your political opposition. You could just take the high ground and be like “yay Democracy” and support every legal vote being counted, assured that you’re still getting your way.

Instead – thousands of Tweeters couldn’t help themselves in kicking the other side when they’re down and used their false perception as club to attack.

Twitter, which has been censoring and “correcting” with vague warnings, Donald J Trump’s official account (but not Biden’s) in the months leading up to the election and especially afterward any time he tweets anything about the election (literally anything – not just disputed claims) put no correction, alert, or attempt to curtail the misinformation about the election that was spreading through any of these tweets. 

As an example, take this tweet of Trumps saying that the numbers of his votes are “up big”, which they were at the time (11:49pm, November 3rd), so that was disputed by no one. After midnight, however, vote counting in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin stopped – something I don’t think has ever been done in modern (say, post 19th century) American vote counting on election night – new gluts of votes came in, and the tides started to turn. Trump accurately said he was up in the count and raised attention to the fishy behavior and for that Twitter says “not so fast”:

Keep that standard in mind while looking through the trending page for this “800 for Trump” lie as none of them have corrections by Twitter A.I. or manual editors despite the content they’re gloating about with soppy-wet sarcasm is actually the opposite of what really happened:

No, Alyssa… Georgia is now *less blue due to the recount…

https://twitter.com/TimOBrien/status/1328522859224965120
^Tim O’Brien is an anti-Trump blue-check-mark columnist for Bloomberg and author of Trump Nation. The tweet above was screenshotted before being deleted and can be seen here:

https://twitter.com/Sharpdotjar/status/1328497266961895424
https://twitter.com/EstepHeffernan/status/1328711942962372608
https://twitter.com/Fleshfire/status/1328508241584787457
https://twitter.com/jbwing_5/status/1328543817738444806

Notice how many of these people touting math while failing the math of the claim. Hundreds of the tweets I looked through were ones like this where they are commenting on an accurate tweet (in this case, by Brendan Keefe) with their ignorance:

This guy even made a fan fiction over his error:

This one gets extra points for including the “let me get this straight” trope + “do they not know [the thing I myself am misunderstanding], or am I missing something?”

https://twitter.com/theepictheymer/status/1328522379618889729
https://twitter.com/TJGIII/status/1328516271638515712

I thought for sure this next one was a satire because they ask “since when did [thousands] become thousands?” In addition to the other falsehoods. Yikes. 

This guy with almost 40 thousand followers self-own’s with the roast “Maga. Because learnin’ is hard.” in his tweet showing that learnin, for him, is in fact difficult. 

^his bio identifies him as “Author of Goodnight Loon: Poems & Parodies to Survive Trump, and Goodnight Loon II”… Dozens of comments joined in his ridicule with various versions of the GOP being bad at math – again – while being the ones making the ridiculous math error. 

The sarcastic struggles to understand their own mistakes continue: 

https://twitter.com/angieseyy/status/1328513425190907906

Many were probably misled by this popular Leftist account with almost a million followers, whom I have caught fudging facts at least 4 other times this year: 

The irony of saying “you can’t make this shit up” – literally about shit that the speaker of the phrase made up:

“They apparently can’t count”

Will these people delete their mistakes? So far none of the above have corrected or retracted in follow up tweets as new people keep Liking and retweeting the falsehoods in their original posts.

Sadly – I saw at least a dozen tweet replies being even MORE snarky and sarcastically dismissive even after the corrections were made because they just didn’t want to believe it, didn’t want to look it up, and just stuck with the original narrative. Basically all of them went along this tone and line of logic:

^That one is the best representation of all of these as it wraps up every trop into one reply:

  • over confidence of something they’re dead wrong about,
  • attacks someones capability in sentences riddled with typos and grammar mistakes,
  • brags about how they are actively recruiting people to be as ignorant as themselves

“ur so stoopid but I’ll explain it to you, you poor dumb thing: [total falsehoods]. Get it now, looser? Lol I win. Nobody’s smart but me!” 

“It’s math not opinions”…

How / Why this happened…

The information in these tweets are technically “lies” since the content is untrue and easily verifiably so, but I doubt even one of these people are “lying” (saying something *knowing* it is untrue). Rather, this confusion stemmed from Democrats reading that “Trump could gain nearly 800 net votes” and, since none of them have ever run a business, simply didn’t know what “net” means. That ignorance combined with confidence and a fighting attitude to stick it to the Trumpkins resulted in the mass misinformation train of people bathing in their own errors and feeling like super winners about it.

If the “net 800” thing makes sense to you then skip this paragraph. If you’re still absorbing those words the way I did with the MSNBC flub because math is hard (again: not being sarcastic), then just remember that economically, “net” means the total of something after its deficits. Think of the word “net” like a physical net that you carry something in and that something being what you get to take home. As in – if our lemonade stand pays $24 for ingredients and earns $25 in sales then we sold $25 worth of product – but the “net income” (profit) for that round is only $1 (income minus expenses, which here is 25-24). This is important because Democrats want to tax and regulate businesses while not understanding – and making no effort to understand – businesses they want to tax and regulate. Many of you here no doubt thought my lemonade business example of just $1 profit ($25 in sales minus $24 in expenses) was silly because its either unrealistic that even a small business would make such a small profit margin, and/or even if they did then “oh well” because they shouldn’t be in business if they can’t earn enough to pay half of that dollar in taxes to the government (which didn’t help buy, make, or sell anything but still gets paid) plus a government forced hourly minimum wage to anyone the lemonade biz hires. My example, however, uses the average profit margin of the restaurant business, which is 3-5% (4 percent of $25 is $1).

And that’s what makes this important to spotlight. Not that people got a thing wrong or even that they were jerks about it – but that a billion dollar mass media corporation is actively censoring opinions by the President that they don’t like while not only giving safe haven to verifiable falsehoods but actually featuring them as a highlight for people to go check out.

Something to be aware of.

——————————-

Update: The following tweets originally included in this post were deleted by their [presumably embarrassed] authors so I replaced them with others above but saved the list of shame for posterity since despite being so nasty about it, NONE of them corrected their mistake in follow up tweets (correct me if I missed anyone who did) after having misled the thousands who read it – they just quietly deleted the lie and moved on.

^(the last two was a pair of those who doubled down on the falsehood when corrected by multiple people before ultimately realizing their critics were right and deleted it all) 

420: Four 2020 Electoral Map Possibilities, Explained

Reminder* that elections in the United States balance the representation between minority and majority states via the Electoral College, which gives each state an electoral number based on its population. The candidate who reaches 270+ is the winner.

A further Reminder on how predictions work: Prediction models are not intended to be accurate – they’re intended to be useful. Let me say that again: Prediction models are not intended to be accurate in specificity (otherwise everyone would know for sure the outcomes) – they are intended to be *useful* (eg: a directionally-accurate temperature to glean data from). Such models are not formulated to place specific bets on the details of the predictions – their purpose is for a wider accuracy that takes into account many variables that can and will change between the predictive model run and the actual result.

Presentation notes

You’ll notice that the titles of these maps orbit around one candidate and are not neutrally stated. That is because re-election voting years are typically referendums on the sitting President, and as such the result scenario titles here are framed around the incumbent, which this year is President Donald J. Trump.

The data I’ve seen suggests 4 scenarios:

  1. Trump Wins Narrowly
  2. Trump Loses Narrowly
  3. Trump Loses Bigly
  4. Trump Wins Bigly

Considering all of the above – here are the 4 more likely projections, explained. Remember that the winning number is 270. Enjoy.

Trump Narrow Win: 279

In this scenario, Trump picks up no states from his win in 2016 and loses Michigan, and Wisconsin, but keeps Pennsylvania – all of which which he won that year, then he still makes it past 270 to win re-election.

Trump Narrow Loss: 259

If Trump loses his 2016 won states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, then Joe Biden will squeak a win out at 279 electoral votes. This scenario and the one above all hinge on Pennsylvania, a must-win state for the math to work in the Presidents favor.

Trump Big Loss: 182

Call this one the “The Polls Were Correct” Map. This is what the polling throughout 2020 predicted according to ABC News’ FiveThirtyEight and the RealClearPolitics polling average: Trump loses formerly solid-red states of North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona, loses states Obama won in Florida and Iowa, loses states he won in 2016 in PA/MI/WI, and fails to pick up a single new state from his 2016 victory, handing Biden a 356 landslide.

Trump Big Win: 322

If Trump keeps all of his 2016 wins and adds states where he only narrowly lost then the ones most likely to flip would be Minnesota and Nevada and one of Maine’s electoral split votes, giving Trump a 322 blowout.

My data suggests a narrow win, but if I had to bet money, I would lean closer to this big win scenario.

Bonus scenario: Total Landslide for Trump
It should be noted that, while not likely, a landslide scenario is not impossible (though, just because of the way the human brain reads “not impossible” into their own confirmation bias’s, it’s important to repeat that this is not likely). Such a not-impossible scenario would take the “Trump Big Win” map above and add Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia – all states George W. Bush won in 2004 – going to Trump. Again – sorry for even bringing it up when it requires this many disclaimers but – Polling and recent political climate in these states does not forecast this, but in a year where COVID wasn’t a factor and some other tweaks to the political climate were made – this could be a thing.

Bonus scenario 2: Total Landslide for Biden
Add Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina, and… Texas.

Bonus scenario 3: A Tie…
This gets teased every year since the close 2000 Bush vs Gore election, but hey – it’s possible. If this were to happen, the way it would likely pan out is with Trump picking up no new states and retaining the victories from his 2016 map except for just Michigan and Pennsylvania. If that were to happen then each candidate has 269 votes – just one shy of the winning number.

The Constitution is clear on what happens in such a case: If there is no winner in the Electoral College, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3 states that the decision of who becomes President goes to the House of Representatives while the Senate picks the vice president. That means that depending on the house and senate election results, there could be a President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris administration…. yikes.

If neither the Senate nor the House can pick someone, then the third in line for the Presidency becomes acting President until both chambers of Congress decide on someone. That 3rd in line spot is the Speaker of the House – in this case, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. as Madam President for at least a period of time…

Surprise! War-Loving General comes out against President Trump because “the Constitution” or something

Retired Marine General James N. Mattis was Trumps first Secretary of War Defense but resigned in protest after failing to convince the President that he needed to blow up more countries. Now, the same Mattis who said we needed to keep fighting an 18 year long war, bomb more people, police more nations, ultimately resigned from the administration when it pulled troops out of Syria instead of following his advice to put more in, and now sits as a board member for General Dynamics (aka one of the largest defense contractors in the US) thinks President Trump is bad?… lol. Filed under “No freakin doy”.

Mattis has been laying in wait to come out against Trump in an effort to damage/prevent his reelection bid. He finally made his move in a public condemnation over Trump traveling across the street during a press conference to a church near the White House that was the victim of arson by “protestors” (cuz setting buildings on fire is an appropriate method of free-speech expression, right?) the night before. Mattis said he was angry and appalled, mainly over the Presidential security detail clearing protestors who were blocking the way and accused Trump’s message of unity in front of the victimized place of worship of trying “to divide us.”

About James Mattis

General Mattis was named President-elect Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense in December 2016, a month before the new administration was officially sworn into office. He was frequently referred to a “Mad Dog” Mattis, which the L.A. Times said was a nickname his troops gave him “behind his back” after the battle of Fallujah in 2004 where he reportedly ordered attacks on ambulances and aid workers, prevented civilians from escaping, and posed for trophy photos with the people they killed. Under his command, Marines killed so many civilians that the municipal soccer stadium reportedly had to be turned into a graveyard. Whether the troops meant the nickname of comparing Mattis to an insane animal as a compliment or not is disputed, but the nickname stuck and was used by Trump around his nomination time. Less understandable as “maybe they mean it as a compliment?” is his nickname as “The Warrior Monk”, alluding to his 40+ year long war related career and the fact that he has never been married.

I could find no record of any additional nickname alluding to the apparent laziness and alcoholism of both his eyeballs which sport obscene beer bellies.

Mattis appears to have been, during his military career and beyond, the sort of war loving military man that Hollywood thinks everyone in the military upper ranks is. In 2005 there were calls to discipline him for saying it was “a hell of a lot of fun” to shoot the Taliban, who “slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil.” Nihad Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) commented on that saying “We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event. These disturbing remarks are indicative of an apparent indifference to the value of human life.” I disagree, because – it was the Taliban, after all, (and to be fair: CAIR is also designated as a terrorist organization by the UAE) but nevertheless, Nihad didn’t know how deadnuts spot-on he was when he described Mattis in exactly those terms. This Slate article on Mattis from 2010 depicts his attitude about using human beings as canon fodder to the degree that the dude is even against his men wearing helmets on their motorcycles cuz he only wants risk taking dudes ready to get hurt and die within his ranks. If you think that interpretation sounds exaggerated then you tell me what *you* gleaned from this portion of the piece:

Maintaining this culture of ferocity is why Mattis bristles about excessive hand-wringing over Marines who might want to ride without motorcycle helmets. Marines need to be risk-takers. That’s why the corps advertises at extreme sporting events. Ferocity is part of what the corps works to build in boot camp, and it is central to its storied history and traditions. If that’s the kind of spirit you need to fight wars, then you have to accept that the kind of person you want is going to sometimes ride at 120 miles an hour on a bike and hurt himself.

In and out of the Trump Cabinet

This history and “Mad Dog” approach to warfare made some question how well he would fit into Donald Trumps administration, which was promised during the campaign to be decidedly more anti-war than any of the previous Democrat or Republican administrations in living memory. The Mad Dog was portrayed as an anti-torture advocate who would bring a Trumpian aggressive attitude to a foreign policy that was decidedly non-aggressive in a sort of “speak loudly and carry a big stick, but leave that stick at your side until absolutely necessary” (paraphrase) type approach.

Turns out, the fit wasn’t so great.

Mattis finally left the administration in frustration over being unable to convince President Trump to escalate war rhetoric, drop more bombs, send more troops, or start any of the new wars he was looking forward to commanding from the White House. The last straw that caused him to resign in protest was when Trump, against Mattis’ reported wishes and advisement, and hopes and dreams of spilling more blood for no good reason, had US troops removed from Syria.

This made sense to Trump, whose approach to war is more practical, eg – along the lines of “defeat the enemy and get out”, while such an approach is an outrage to warmongers who see every excuse for conflict as a potential for more escalation.

Trump criticized Mattis on the way out, saying Mattis did not see a problem with the US subsidizing the militaries of rich countries, or allowing them to “take total advantage of the US and our TAXPAYERS, on Trade.” Mattis left because he seemingly assumed that Trumps anti-war comments were along the lines of President Obama’s in that they were just political appeals to get elected and then once in office, a war expert like him would easily sway the White House into continuing it’s record of exploding more places than the previous occupant. When Trumps foreign policy ideology didn’t budge, Mattis was evidently very annoyed and left in a blustery huff.

I said on the day of his departure from the administration that he was biding his time to use some bullsh*t “Trump is bad for the American Way” appeal to Trumps base (well, specifically I predicted that he would just use “conservative appeals”) to try and peel them back into the hawks nest but I said it would likely come closer to the election. Indeed, that same month it was revealed that Mattis had explored a potential run for President to defeat Trump and Make America War-focused again.

“Shocker”… Mattis rebukes Trump in election year

While Mattis ultimately decided not to run against Trump in 2020, his commitment to seeing the President he served under get removed from office remains strong and he finally pounced this month, claiming that Trump is bad for “the Constitution” or something.

The statement had a bunch of tired talking points like Trump being -gasp – “divisive” (as if THIS was the big secret revealed) and referring to Trumps press conference that showcased St Johns church – an area landmark damaged by the fires that were part of the devastation from the riotsprotests” the night before and continuing into the next day – as a “bizarre photo op” (“wtf is all this calling for peace crap??” he must have furiously exclaimed) and express outrage that the President said he would bring in the U.S. Military to protect and defend the country if the domestic terrorism didn’t stop.

Read this portion of his complaint and you can almost feel Mattis’ heartbreak at learning of such a crushing proclamation antithetical to everything he believes in regarding the countries armed forces – that his precious tools of death would be used, not as pawns in foreign countries, but on American soil protecting actual American citizens from harm.

When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

These checklists of outrages about “divisiveness” and “photo ops” (ie: every single thing a President does in public) are all obviously designed to blow a kiss to the corporate press already circulating those same talking points and try to lend them some seeming credibility from his stature as someone who loves killing people.

Not sure why Mattis thinks the Constitution contains the rights for mob gatherings to impede the travel of the President for any reason (I checked. It doesn’t) – even/including if it is for a demonstration in the street to showcase that you think racism and/or murder is bad. Given his history, he was also presumably super angry that only strictly non-lethal tactics were used to clear the mobs out of the way for the president to visit one of the sites their movement tried to destroy and tell the American people he would put an end to such destruction.

Of course the point of all this is to seize the opportunity to get the President some negative news coverage at a time when his leadership was doing way too well for comfort. While the corporate press succeeded in whipping up an international frenzy of hate and outrage causing violence (that the main anti-Trump fake-Republican group wasted no time cutting into ads) over the seemingly unjust killing of a black suspect in Minnesota during his arrest, the coverage doesn’t appear to be doing much to dent Trumps reputation. This wasn’t helped by the fact that the incident occurred in a Democrat city, under a Democrat mayor, by a Democrat union, and under a Democrat prosecutor, Democrat attorney general, and Democrat Governor, with Republican President Trump (the same guy who undid the worst damage from the Democrat crime bill of the 90s last year) being the only one who acted swiftly for justice in the situation.

While it was never a secret that Mattis, like others in the so called deep state coup participants, wanted Trump replaced with someone easier to convince into sending troops and bombs and bases and money around the world at pre-Trump levels in the Presidency again (whether that be himself or Joe Biden, or future Republicans running for office under a cloud of “see?? Trump lost and you will too unless you fall in line on war games”) this wasn’t common knowledge to the average observer and thus gave weight to the intended effect, which was “respected General turns on Trump”.

https://twitter.com/AdamBlickstein/status/1268305919546441728

Whether any Conservatives at all who like the President will be duped by this charade remains to be seen (the Senates most Trump-critical Republicans, Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Mitt Romney (UT) both praised Mattis’ comments), but at the time of this writing is rather doubtful given the easy-to-reveal history of Mattis’ opposition for the platform of de-escalating violence that they voted for.

Trump haters, on the other hand are all in on this talking point, and Mattis citing the Constitution I guess makes them feel like they have some cover for becoming war shills in the name of justifying their hate for the President because he pens mean Tweets.

At the last minute before I published this post, I saw this tweet from Rich Higgins, a the former director for strategic planning in the National Security Council, making the following claim about Mattis:

https://twitter.com/richhiggins_dc/status/1268330216285495296?s=21

Developing…

The problems with (and cover up for) rushed mass mail-in voting

President Trump has expressed concern about states, particularly the key election states of Michigan and Nevada, changing their voting rules this election year to shift to mail-in voting in the name of safety because of the Wuhan Coronavirus.

Increased mail-in voting increases potential for fraud, so naturally this should be a bipartisan issue, right? You would think the Democratic party might have an interest in protecting Democracy and specifically – the citizens rights to have their vote counted and not illegally cancelled out by a fraudulent tally. But no… the Democrat party and its partisan defenders take the opposite position and ridicule the concern in the first place.

Straw-manning the issue

The first tactic to ridiculing a point with merit to it is to remove the merit and argue against an alternate dumber version of the argument in a technique known as the Strawman Fallacy.

While Trump has been rightfully suspicious of the fast track attempt to use mass mail-in voting as the standard for this years election, Trump critics bashing him on this strawman his position into “any vote by mail is bad” which is a much easier position (that he never took) to tear down, especially since military votes are by mail and Trump himself votes absentee ballots. This technique was used to roast the President as a hypocrite by media who made no attempt to give readers a glimpse into what the actual concern expressed is or might be.

CNN’s Chris Cillizza summed up this dumb non-point on a CNN.com article (which is notable because it would be one thing if a journalist displayed this level of lack-of-journalism on their blog or social media profile but to do so on their platform of alleged journalism only validates via illustration, Trumps claim that CNN is Fake News):

President Donald Trump made very clear that voting by mail — an alternative many are suggesting to deal with the ongoing stay-at-home directives — is a very bad thing. And more than that, he suggested, it’s deeply corrupt.”No, mail ballots, they cheat,” said Trump. “OK, people cheat. Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country because they are cheaters.”

You might have noticed that Trump is not terribly thorough and precise with every sentence that casually references another that he’s said in that moment or the week prior when he speaks off the cuff to an audience that knows (or he thinks knows) what he’s talking about (like supporters at a rally or members of the press) and this makes for easy attack points by dishonest media critics to just isolate those moments instead of doing that journalism thingy where they aggregate the facts on the topic together and report them in a way to inform the people of the Presidents position. Instead, these corporate press outlets pluck these moments out of any further explanatory context and rebut the literalness of those isolated phrases rather than the collective explanation. The above quotes are not the only comments the President has said, yet Cilizza uses those and those alone to dishonestly summarize his position. With the false premise that “Trump thinks no one should ever vote by mail”, the premise is set for the “gotchya”. In reality, the lines above were spoken, as I noted, in reference to his previous comments on the subject regarding hastily expanded mass mail-in voting and Trump made the mistake of mentioning it in a press conference where he assumed the reporters attending would have been good enough at their jobs to know the subject matter.

Nah. Instead of referencing the larger issue, a reporter was all “uhhm, didn’t you just recently vote by mail?” and Trump was all “Duh. Yea. You can do that in Florida and I was in the White House so I voted absentee” and the reporter was like “how do you reconcile that?” and Trump was like “Wtf b*ch”. *(Paraphrased / not a real transcript).

Cilizza used the actual back and forth, where the reporter actually did say “How do you reconcile that” and Trump said he was in the White House, probably not even catching on that the reporter was trying to trap him and thought she was just being stupid, and then called it “obvious hypocrisy” instead of the non-contradictory reality it is. The lying title of that Cilizza article, btw, is “Donald Trump’s blatant hypocrisy on voting by mail” even though only an approximate 26 lines of the post (including the “how do you reconcile that?” transcript) are dedicated to that false premise and 56 lines afterward acknowledging the higher propensity of mail-in fraud, but making excuses for it as not a big enough deal to do anything about…

The problem with mail-in fraud

Cilizza gets to the point that “The problem is that Trump thinks absentee voting is good for him but not for other people. Because of, er, fraud.” – which again, is false. Trump never said or implied anything about the current absentee voting system in place – his comments were only about rushed state wide mass mail-in voting – but Cilizza can’t just be out there writing posts like “Trump is right about this issue” – so first came the false “lol what a hypocrite” thesis that headlined the post, and then buried underneath comes the acknowledgement of the issue at hand:

Now, what Trump is right about is that absentee voting and vote-by-mail have been the places in the recent past where the small amount of voter fraud that exists has been discovered. (Nota bene: The only difference, effectively, between absentee voting and vote-by-mail is that in the former you have to request a ballot while in the latter a ballot is sent to you.)

Yea… doy…

The concern is, again, not that registered voters who mail in their ballots are currently doing a bad thing, but that a new policy automatically mailing ballots to millions of people that didn’t ask for them, comes with the obvious potential of mailing voter fraud opportunities. Without a thorough review to do this right, you’re potentially sending millions of ballots to people who don’t exist or are ineligible voters.

For such a policy to avoid this obvious loophole for election theft, the voter rolls would have to undergo a re-indexing to update the Governments inefficient system of doing seemingly simple tasks it manages to fail at like keeping track of people who moved, are registered in multiple states by accident or on purpose, who have died or have been convicted of a felony that makes them ineligible to cast a vote.

Trying to make the non-controversial a controversy

Situations like this where journalists want to editorially slant a message but not completely bald-faced-lie about it entirely do so by couching the truth they don’t want focused on in a swarm of “yea, but still”. Again – I’m picking on CNN’s Chris Cilizza here, but only because his article on the subject was so exemplary of the others who did the exact same thing in the same way. In his pre-mentioned article he admits to national mail-in fraud but when talking about specific examples, makes sure they are only ones that are obscure, hyper-local, and from a long time ago, such as one in the Democratic primaries for local offices like sheriff in “the late 1990s” (couldn’t give an exact year, bro? “1997” is in both the top of the article and its URL…), quoting from what “The New York Times wrote back then“:

“Many of the absentee voters were assisted in voting by supporters of various candidates after claiming that they could not read (sometimes despite high school or college degrees) or that they suffered from physical maladies (one saying he had been kicked in the head by a mule).”

More recently than the “the late 90s”/1997, in “the early aught-tens” (2012), a piece published by the New York Times titled “Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises”.

The NYT caption on this photo reads: “An absentee ballot in Florida. Almost 2 percent of mailed ballots are rejected, double the rate for in-person voting.”
-Credit… Sarah Beth Glicksteen for The New York Times

The Times article reports that election administrators say that just the increasing trend of more people choosing to vote by mail “will probably result in more uncounted votes, and it increases the potential for fraud”, noting in particular that voting by mail contains “vastly more prevalent” fraud than the in-person voting fraud that most media attention surrounds. Despite being from 2012, it offers more pertinent historical record highlights than CNN-Cilizza’s 1997 Georgia sheriff primary example, such as:

In Florida, absentee-ballot scandals seem to arrive like clockwork around election time. Before this year’s primary, for example, a woman in Hialeah was charged with forging an elderly voter’s signature, a felony, and possessing 31 completed absentee ballots, 29 more than allowed under a local law.

The flaws of absentee voting raise questions about the most elementary promises of democracy. “The right to have one’s vote counted is as important as the act of voting itself,” Justice Paul H. Anderson of the Minnesota Supreme Court wrote while considering disputed absentee ballots in the close 2008 Senate election between Al Franken and Norm Coleman.

Voting by mail is now common enough and problematic enough that election experts say there have been multiple elections in which no one can say with confidence which candidate was the deserved winner.

Which is exactly Trumps stated concern that Cilizza and other Trump critics are trying to dismiss. One has to wonder why that might be…

Vox writer Aaron Rupar responded to this with the headline “Trump isn’t even trying to hide his self-interested reasons for opposing mail-in voting” with the byline quoting Trump saying “For whatever reason, [it] doesn’t work out well for Republicans”, calling that an example of President Trump “saying the quiet part loud” when it comes to his opposition to mail-in voting. The reality is just the opposite: disproportionate Democrat votes in increased mail-in ballots than exist in the rest of the voting tallies suggests evidence to exactly Trumps concern about fraud.

In that same Vox piece, Rupar totally makes stuff up about to boost mail-in voting by claiming Trump totally makes stuff up to discredit mail-in voting:

However, Marc Thiessen writing in the Washington Post that, Trump’s concern about mail-in ballots is completely legitimate brings further examples, not the least of which being that:

A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James A. Baker III, concluded in 2005 that “absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud” and that “vote buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.” Carter and Baker also pointed out that citizens who vote at nursing homes “are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation.” In Florida, there is even a name for this: “granny farming.”

Thiessen also notes items of consequence that the higher rates of mail-in ballots not even being counted are undisputed.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study found that in the 2008 presidential election, 7.6 million of 35.5 million mail-in ballots requested were not counted because they never reached voters or were rejected for irregularities. That is a failure rate of more than 21 percent. In 2008, it did not matter because the election was not particularly close and mail-in ballots only accounted for a fraction of votes cast. But imagine the impact that would have in a close election in which mail-in voting is tried on a massive scale.

Again: more than a tiny bit suspicious that so called “Democrats” would be downplaying these known threats to democracy, no?

As admitted by Cilizza (again – in his article that calls Trumps absentee voting “hypocritical”), Thiessen also cites the difference between absentee votes and a state-wide change to mass mail voting:

Moreover, there is a huge difference between sending ballots to a small number of citizens who request them and requiring that they be mailed to every registered voter, as Democrats are demanding. Under the Democrats’ plan, ballots would inevitably be sent to wrong addresses or inactive voters, putting millions of blank ballots into circulation — an invitation for fraud. Add to that the danger of what Democrats call “community ballot collection” (a.k.a. “ballot harvesting”) where campaign workers collect absentee ballots in bulk and deliver them to election officials, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Seems more like the validation of Trumps concern about a rushed change of plans to enact state-wide mail-in voting this election year is far from controversial – it’s nearly universally agreed upon by data published and opined in the same sources that are attacking this concern (NY Times, WashPo, CNN, just to name the 3 quoted in this post by me).

Know who else agrees? Chris Cilizza…

In the same article mentioned several times in this post – the one dubiously calling Trump a hypocrite in the title and claiming that voter fraud shouldn’t be a concern, Chris Cilizza says the same thing as Trump. Specifically that:

So, there’s no question that past history has suggested that absentee balloting and vote-by-mail are more likely than in-person voting to be subject to bad actors. Which makes sense since the vote is being cast, usually, in the privacy of your home, as opposed to at a polling place with official poll watchers and election officials not only keeping an eye out for any irregularities but also taking the ballot from you as soon as you cast it.

-Chris Cilizza, CNN

Which, again:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is thats.the_.point_.gif

Stealing from some because you “want things” for others makes you a bad person

Just a friendly reminder to well meaning philosophers with such big hearts that they become generous with other peoples money: I’m not scolding you, I’m just pointing out that desires for the well being of others doesn’t lift your moral credentials and taking from people makes you worse, not better.

The inspo for this Public Service Announcement stems from this proclamation shared with me on social media that wags a digital finger at people who point out what many think is obvious – that advocating theft from people makes you a bad person (even if it’s for reasons you think are noble redistributions) – but an increasing number of people think is virtuous:

“Wanting everyone to have healthcare and food does not make you a communist, socialist or unpatriotic. It just makes you a good person.”

That is almost mostly true. Accuracy rating of 20% to a maximum of 49%.

Wanting vs Doing

Wanting good things for people makes you nothing but just a sort-of “nice” person in an abstract theoretical way, because of course, “wanting” things can’t make you good any more than wanting to be healthy makes you lose weight or wanting to be bilingual makes you fluent in Bengali. To be those types of persons you have to do things, not “want” them.

In the past couple years from the time of this writing, a trope has cropped up in social media punditry that mocks and derides people saying that they are extending “thoughts and prayers” in the wake of something terrible happening instead of doing something more tangible to help the people you are proclaiming to psychically benefit by thinking things and mentally saying things about the poor state of affairs that has befallen them. I’m inclined to agree with the philosophy when used in the context of “instead of virtue signally a broadcast about your compassion and empathy, you should do something about it by donating, volunteering, or one-on-one helping an affected person”. But that usually only applies to contexts of natural disasters and most commonly the anti-thoughts&prayers trope is most commonly used by authoritarians in response to murders committed with guns in the context of “instead of ‘thoughts and prayers’ why aren’t you supporting more government legislation to curtail law-obeyers 2nd amendment rights in ways that wouldn’t have prevented this act of evil that you’re broadcasting ‘thoughts and prayers’ about??”. Either way, the point is the same that you can “wish” and “want” all you want but “wanting” others to be aided isn’t helping any individual lives.

Back to the meme: Wanting people to have their health cared for and to be able to eat is a great thing to want. What makes you a communist, socialist, or unpatriotic bad person is when you take steps to initiate violence (support for state force) in order to confiscate/steal other people’s representation of their labor (their money) in order to fulfill your utopian “wants” instead of use your own capital and non violently convince others to voluntarily do the same for the same purpose.

Anti-Choice is Anti-Good

You might think it’s the best thing to give $100 of your money to a homeless shelter while I might think it’s the best thing to give $100 of my money to St Jude’s Hospital and the only thing you can do to get my $100 away from kids with cancer and toward your adults without a place to live is to convince me with logical or emotional or rational appeals.

As soon as you say “I want this thing to exist, thus my want overrules your wants, so I support the use of force to take what is yours to go towards the things I want”, you are an unpatriotic bad person.

Whether you prefer communism or socialism as your preferred method of State control is your own business.

Sociopath Democrats want MORE years of jail time for non-violent crime

On the heels of President Trump passing criminal justice reform, freeing thousands of non-violent criminals from unfair lives of imprisonment, Democrats are calling for MORE caging of non-violent offenders of laws that only the ruling class thinks are that important.

President Trumps former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted of avoiding taxes in an illegal way, and for that, he is going to be locked in a cage for 3.9 years. Democrats, instead of calling this sentencing for the unreasonable exercise of government power that it is, are calling it ‘disrespectful,’ ‘lenient,’ ‘an outrage’.

Paul Manaforts mug shot in front of a prison-orange superimposed background and behind superimposed jail bars. Source: TalkingPointsMemo.com illustration of an AP article about the Mueller probe that was formed to find “Russian Collusion” in the Trump campaign, which is a hoax that never happened, and thus needed to find some other peoples lives to ruin so it didn’t look quite so feckless and insane as it actually is.

Specifically, Manafort was convicted last August on eight felony counts, including filing false tax returns, failure to register foreign bank accounts and, related to that non-registration maneuver – bank fraud. So basically, he tried to keep more of his money than the State wanted to confiscate from him, got caught, and now has to spend several years of his life in a cell.

The headline to the NBC News post I linked to above has as its byline the commentary of one unnamed observer saying “If you rob a bank you’re going to spend twice as long in prison as someone who steals millions otherwise,” – completely ignoring that bank robberies involve the threat of death and violence to abscond with money, but more importantly – the fact that Manafort didn’t steal from anyone, he just didn’t “comply with the law” that dictates how much the government can steal from him. This is the sort of thing that could be both fixed and punished by a fine – but the sadistic opposition doesn’t want to enforce a law or see a financial deficit filled – they want people associated with Donald Trump to suffer.

Appreciate the gravity of that totalitarianism: This person is going to spend years in a cage – not because he took what wasn’t his – but because he kept what was his. Cool…

Jurors deadlocked on 10 other counts they tried to snag him with, and Investigator Mueller eventually agreed to not retry those charges as part of the plea bargain stuck with prosecutors.

The state could have sentenced the 69-year old Manafort to up to 24 years in federal prison, so the 3+ years he will get now was a let down to those licking their chops to see him thrown away longer. How can elected servants of the people justify such a ghoulish desire for harsher punishment of people who didn’t physically or even financially endanger anyone? Just tack-on some sort of Social Justice meme to the case of course…

Conjuring imagery to illustrate the divide between street crime and financial impropriety crime, Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said on Twitter “Crimes committed in an office building should be treated as seriously as crimes committed on a street corner”, but how does she know Manafort was in an office building when he failed to inform the state about money he had in certain bank accounts? Because she’s trying to make the ludicrous claim that assaults, robberies, and murders are morally the same as not paying as much taxes and the government wants you to, without sounding precisely as ludicrous as that actually is of course.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez follows the same goofy logic, tweeting that Manafort somehow bought his way into “only” spending almost 4 years of his life in federal prison…

The dishonesty of this comparison of course bypasses the reality that people with low incomes, by definition aren’t getting large portions of that income stolen by the government and thus don’t commit the crimes of “bank fraud” to evade that theft. Rather, people of low income who receive higher prison sentences aren’t results of a judge looking at their yearly earnings and giving longer sentences to lower earners nor is their sentencing a result of not having enough money to buy a bunch of fancy lawyers to argue in a more articulate way for lighter jail time. People typically get longer prison sentences for having lots of prior convictions, usually that involve violence or the threat of violence. If they can’t control themselves to the degree that they are repeatedly caught by the state harming or threatening to harm other citizens, then yea – they get typically harsher time in punitive cages. If Cortez wanted to be honest about such a comparison, she would have compared Manafort to other first-time-offenders with no violence or threats of violence in their crime, but then she wouldnt have an excuse to call his sentencing “light”, nor have an excuse to rally her supporters about an alleged injustice that they need people like her to advocate against, so… truth goes out the window for dishonest emotional appeals while 70 year old men sit in prison for not surrendering enough of their money to the State.

Cool.

Brietbart.com went mainstream and forgot its punk rock roots

Andrew Breitbart was a merry prankster who challenged political correctness and the worst aspects of Leftist censorship, control, and bully culture with bold assaults and humor and did so in ways no one else was even trying – specifically – without being a doctrinaire right wing hack like Bill Buckley, an obsequious establishment partisan like Sean Hannity, or a moralizing religious zealot like much of talk radio. Instead he was fresh and funny and most importantly: not very political. He was political in the sense of challenging power and clowning on powerful members of the State infringing on rights. He wasn’t against same sex marriage and wasn’t a vicious school marm of a scold on issues regarding sex or cultural influence and involvement of marginalized groups of americans – which up until him was basically the cost of admission for any right-of-center political figure who combatted the dogma of big government shackles on individual liberties of speech, self-protection, and finance.

Former Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay social commentator, agitator, admitted provocateur, and impressario, is the only figure who comes close to Andrew Breitbarts legacy of lampooning, trolling, and seriously discussing deep issues that force thought from different perspective amidst the other storms of chaos and mischief towards orthodox traditions of both political norms that they create and instigate.

And yet Breitbart.com abandoned him a year ago when he was attacked for joking and otherwise making light of his own experience as a victim of sexual predation by an older man. While Breitbart didn’t fire him or completely throw him under the bus and Milo left to save them the hassle of increasingly uncomfortable defenses of him that almost certainly would have culminated in a request that he leave, the publication still didn’t do anything to protect one of their own from the character assassination he experienced, and that was a severe error for their position politically, let alone the moral implications of not protecting “one of the family”.

Milo wrote on Instagram (one of the last media platforms that allows him after Twitter and Patreon banned him) under a screenshot of a Breitbart story headlining how Mitt Romney is a RINO or something boring and mainstream-conservative-safezone as it gets, a pretty excellent summation of my feelings towards the Breitbart that was vs the Breitbart that is vs the Breitbart that could have been. Milo’s commentary:

New year, new start! On reflection, and with a heavy heart, I’ve deleted Breitbart from my bookmarks. I loved my time there and I’d return in a heartbeat, but, without me, the team there has simply forgotten how to be interesting, and without Steve, they’ve lost their fighting spirit. There’s just nothing that grabs my attention on the site any more.

When I was at Breitbart, we defined the culture. We were the epicenter of exciting, rebellious countercultural thought. We crushed campus feminism, defended the heroes of Gamergate, threw bombs into campus safe spaces, named and shamed abusive Leftist bullies, published dissident gay editorials, christened new movements… and it was FUNNY and a joy to read.

But what are the writers I hired and trained doing now? Where’s the energy gone? Now the site is spineless and boring, chasing after other, more interesting people six months after everyone else has already covered them—and betraying, denying, disavowing and unpersoning its former stars.

What a waste…

Former supporters turn on Romney and embrace the “dog on the roof” meme

This one is a political-nerd thing that requires some back story to it, but:

In the wake of the news that former Massachusetts Governor and 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will likely run for Senate in Utah in 2018, his detractors have resurfaced the old “dog on the roof” smear that still makes no sense to me. The attack is from the 2007 presidential primary Romney lost to John McCain (who went on to lose the election to Barack Obama in the 2008 election) in where a story the Romney’s told about their family trips including their family dog going with them in a dog carrier on the roof of their car being alleged as some kind of horrible thing – evidently by people who have never traveled with dogs in an automobile before (summary: they *don’t* like to be in the cab of a car and much prefer to stick their heads out the window, or, if possible – be in the open bed of a truck during the traveling. A roof dog carrier is like that, except safer).

This one from a reporter at the conservative Washington Free Beacon incomprehensibly depicts the tortured dog meme being a stand-in for “common sense conservatism” riding on Senator Romney’s car down a road of unchecked Trumpism… huh?
https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/status/923977076373426177

Romney was a Trump critic who opposed his nomination…but this is alleging that he will speed down the road to no longer check the president at the expense of what is known as “common sense conservatism”?

If you can explain this metaphor to me, please do…