HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Qutzupalotl » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 10,378

Journal Archives

It's not unlikely Mueller has had everything from the beginning,

i.e., audio intercepts from our allies. But he also understands the necessity of not burning sources, especially allied intel. He would likely need a long time to find a way to build a case that does not involve the intercepts. My gut tells me this part is done. There is also the matter of countersuits questioning his legitimacy. While those legal arguments may be questionable, their use as propaganda could be formidable. Mueller will need to get favorable court rulings in both to solidify his legitimacy with the whole of the public — which he will need.

Mueller is demonstrably a patriot, and will try to avert a civil war; but he will not accommodate a traitor. He knows how to take down an organized criminal mob.

I do believe Mueller has thought this through and planned for the possibility the Democrats would win back the House, giving them their sole constitutional remedy for this situation. Before you say Republicans control the Senate and will never convict, I say: Never say never. We do not know the depth of depravity Mueller has uncovered. We do not know who in Congress has been indicted already. We do not know who will be left standing.

I urge patience and steady resolve.

Inspiring candidates can have a ripple effect.

Beto on the ballot helped flip the Texas school board, for instance.

McBath was no doubt helped by the presence of Abrams on the ticket. Ossoff was running all alone.

Rural voters don't see government helping them.

Urban voters see sidewalks, public transportation, public parks, construction ... your tax dollars at work. Out in the boonies they can’t even expect the cops to show up for a burglary, they have to fend for themselves. So they see government as a burden, whereas city folk see the fruits of their tax dollars.

... so, a "bimbo eruption"

from the pasty-faced persecutor of the Clintons, which focused undue attention on their sex life.

This guy hates the Clintons for what he cannot accept about himself. He doesn’t need a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. He needs regular appointments with a therapist.

Those who enthusiastically embrace "deplorable"

and who delight in being horrible people, are what I call evil. They are enchanted by hate. Their desire is to see harm coming to their “enemies,” and if you can make life miserable for them, all the better. You get Jesus points or something.

When you go out of your way to be an asshole, just for the fun of being an asshole, you’re on a downward trajectory. We all do it sometimes, but we should each self-correct.

Extemist ideologies tend to brand their political opponents as enemies to the point where you might embrace a foreign dictator to keep your team in power. The two idiots wearing t-shirts that read “I’d Rather Be A Russian Than A Democrat” — they are lost, misguded fools. Whoever commissioned the t-shirts is evil.

Your opponents are your fellow countrymen. Foeign military intel operatives who threaten our way of life are the enemy. Never forget that.

One idea:

Draw contrasts with Republicans without going negative by describing our candidates in simple language:

Integrity. Courage. Honor.

It is a tricky question.

The ACLU’s position is that the answer to objectionable speech is more speech. If someone is wrong, he or she should be corrected but not silenced, at least not by the government. That preserves everybody’s rights and advances debate.

In practice, the ACLU’s position allows bubbles of lies to form and remain unchallenged (see FOX News). They nevertheless say that the freedom to speak is more precious than somehow arbitrating all speech and permitting only true things to be said. The government cannot do that under the Constitution, for good reason.

Workaround: Don't say it's from Snopes.

They have been brainwashed to shut down whenever they hear that name, and refuse to hear any more. They cling to a debunked study saying Snopes is fake.

So, plagiarize. Read the Snopes article and pick out two or three facts that prove something is fake, and make those points in your own words. You can cite the same sources they do. That's usually enough to change minds, as long as they don't know where it came from.

Get angry.

If you address these problems like a kindly old schoolmarm, Sen. Schumer, you won’t win over any voters.

When we talk calmly and rationally about horrific outrages, people sense the disconnect and perceive our side as not being genuine, as though we don’t believe what we are saying. That makes people less inclined to agree with us.

So...think of all the suffering this decision causes, feel it in your gut, get really pissed off, THEN speak. Righteous anger at these daily moral outrages is contagious.

I realize this plan of raising your voice will lead to accusations of us being unhinged, but have you heard RW talk radio lately?

He only said his actions were inappropriate

NOT that they happened the way the accusers said. Apologizing for inappropriate behavior (such as jokes) is not the same as admitting to sexual assault.

Tweeden was quick to accept his apology and move on once Franken mentioned an ethics inquiry. Now we find out Stone had been coaching her. That says a lot about her credibility and motive.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »