Skip to main content

of Frauds and Assholes

Let me start by saying: I know I can be petty. I'm not proud of that, but sometimes it results in good cheap fun. Mostly because I'm sick of their bullshit, but also out of pure curiosity with what they might produce, I have been challenging the people flogging non-voters, third party voters, Bernie Sanders, Russia, the Pope, etc as the reasons for Hillary's loss a year ago. I feel like six months of denial is okish, a year on it starts to be ridiculous. This has been my challenge:


Most try to point out my lack of understanding for nuanced campaigning. In response I ask for an example of another successful campaign relying on a website and an opaque message. Many of them block me or move on to pastures involving less cognitive dissonance. Two have actually attempted to define her agenda and provide video. The first got salty and blocked me after I asked if he was sure the agenda he shared was in each of the five videos. The second is the reason for this distracting post.

There's a dishonest political hack, Sally Albright, who once worked for Newt Gingrich, supported the Republican governor of Alabama in his resistance to the ACA, apparently didn't vote for Hillary but leads a very vocal group of followers blaming everyone else for Fragile Ego. I feel a need to occasionally step into her feed to disperse the cloud of disinformation that's where I encountered the second person to try to take up my challenge; I tend to offer the challenge in her threads fairly often. Rather than simply take up my challenge @enrelchi first tried to convince me of all of the external factors against her. My position remains that all those factors were apparent before her run and the fact that she had no adequate or apparent strategy to counter those factors bodes poorly for her mythical presidency. When I pointed it out he immediately "upped the ante" and demanded I pin a tweet that would be embarrassing to someone who gave a fuck. In retrospect I realize I don't read many of the tweets closely from these disingenuous people and only just realized that his first reason for her loss was that she was a threat to the power structure. If I had read it I might have ended it all there.


This person seemed less than fully trustworthy so I established standards and it quickly proved prescient:




After 8 days, on Thanksgiving morning he finally posted videos, said it had been both easy and time consuming to find them, and offered that there was no need to post the "embarrassing" tweet. I called bullshit on that. If he'd had any faith in those videos containing her agenda he, like all of them, would have wanted to put me in my place and I honestly didn't believe she had five videos with a consistent message. Regardless, even if he had found 5 videos with her agenda and it had taken 8 days, that essentially proved my point. It should have taken a time traveller from 1850 an hour to find the footage of a competent campaign. When I called bullshit, he got blustery and upped the ante again to actually deleting my account. The thing is, he has yet to make it clear that our wagers are equal.








I didn't watch any campaign speeches for any of the presidential candidates. It's not my thing. I will read the occasional transcript if there's a new development. I dreaded the idea of having to watch HRC's campaign speeches, especially five of them, to prove myself right, but this asshole necessitated it. My plan was to create a spreadsheet ticking off each point hit in each video. I decided to start with the Las Vegas speech. It was the best place to start since it was just 20 minutes long and half of it was about DJT. Also, the fact that it didn't speak to all of the points in the agenda he laid out meant I didn't need to watch anymore. The thing is a couple weeks after her Las Vegas speech she spoke in Reno and the speech was completely different. The transcript is worth reading to compare to her Vegas speech. It's striking. Even if I'm generous on the topics she touches on in her Vegas speech she never talks about healthcare or paid family leave. At this point @enrelchi should delete his account since I've called his bluff. The only purpose of this post is to show that within 24 hours of his final demand I'd already proven his videos inadequate to the challenge; this was written less than 24 hours later. I'm only posting this as a STFU to @enrelchi, as I said, I can be petty.

Even if he doesn't delete his account, he doesn't seem the most principled, we can thank him for putting this to rest once and for all. That it took him eight days to find five videos with inconsistent messages should make it clear that she offered nothing we can recognize as an agenda other than not being Fragile Ego.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Making the White Supremacist Argument in Blackface

What are the stakes that people imagine to be bound up with demonstrating that capitalism in this country emerged from slavery and racism, which are treated as two different labels for the same pathology? Ultimately, it's a race reductionist argument. What the Afro-pessimist types or black nationalist types get out of it is an insistence that we can't ever talk about anything except race. And that's partly because talking about race is the things they have to sell. Adolph Reed Jr. If it's not clear already, it's worth thinking about the ways in which the history revision of the 1619 Project is less about understanding history than it is using history to justify a specific approach to defining and dealing with racism in the present. It serves the same purpose as all of the moral idealism pretending to represent justice-- identity politics, intersectionality, reparations-- that exist in the discourse to deter economic redistribution generally, and specifical

Anti-racism - Class = Status Quo: The Neoliberal Argument Against Coalition

I was approached a few months ago around the idea of collaborating to make the progressive case for reparations. I've said before that while the idea of reparations is morally appealing I don't believe in them as an immediate political project. It's not clear to me that it's possible to build a coalition around a reparative justice focused on just 13% of the population. Encouraged by a recent Twitter conversation that included economists Sandy Darrity and Darrick Hamilton where they suggested that saying reparations will never happen is cynical I've begun trying to think of them as an eventuality and lay out the steps to reaching them. Doing this has made clear that our understanding of reparations as a form of compensation to the descendants of the enslaved is not the reparative justice that we think it to be. If we were living with the kind of understanding of justice that made reparations possible we would not be a nation where war, healthcare, education, and cr

Is Cynicism More Disqualifying Than Ignorance?

I was somewhat reluctant at the time to ascribe any specific intent to Elizabeth Warren's DNA stunt, just focusing on what it said about her political instincts. In retrospect, because of subsequent choices, I see it as craven cynicism. I get that, "I have a plan for that!" is supposed to be her new brand, but obviously, a working plan isn't a central part of that. Her brand should actually be "Pandering Cynic". I now find myself wondering if even she thinks the policy she offers will do what she says it's intended to do. I've been saying in my head that I feel irrational anger towards her, but it's actually quite rational and specific. My posting schedule has been off because I've been playing with the idea of submitting pieces for publication. I've been thinking a lot about how we talk about disparities and how the conversation is used as a cudgel against universal policy. The closest to a good faith version of this argument is