CleverBomb
On Space Out
I step away for a bit and it's like I have no idea how to engage this at all.
There's that guy who blames Obama for Obamacare not working for him despite, you know, refusing to sign up for it... and getting partly bailed out by (mostly) liberals on his go-fund-me drive.
Loosely-sourced (and not particularly logical) allegations that it wasn't American intel that got us OBL, but instead that the Pakistanis had him and sold him out -- he's still dead either way, so so what?
And not just whackadoodle conspiracy theories that the military is going to use a set of exercises of the sort they normally do anyhow, to take over Texas and herd dissidents into subterranean FEMA prison camps underneath WalMart stores -- but elected politicians who are too desperate, cynical, or cowed, to call this stuff out as the lunacy it is.
A Presidential candidate saying he's running, then backtracking as soon as he realized he'd said so (for campaign finance reasons). And then there were the Iraq war comments... And he's supposed to be the smart one.
Plus all of the police issues, the President leading Republicans against Democrats on the Trans-Pacific Partnership fast-track vote, and so much more. Really, where to start?
But that's the point, isn't it? Have so much "out there" that sane people give up in frustration and marginally-informed voters stop caring. Some people thrive on the "win the news cycle on Twitter" warfare, and I'm glad they do; I can't really keep up with that level of detail and for most people it's probably not all that healthy to even try.
Though, to be honest, I’m probably doing exactly the same thing here. This is turning out to be a scattershot “Ball of Confusion” or “The End of the World as We Know It” list of screwed up things – but that’s not really my intent here. Years ago, or even recently, it was enough to point out historical or procedural inaccuracies, cherry-picking, and mathematical impossibilities. But how do you argue with someone who is sincerely convinced (or fakes such sincerity; the effects are the same) that the American military is poised to conquer Texas? How can you reach someone who’s convinced the ACA doesn’t work when his active non-participation is the reason he’s ineligible for it for the next half-year? What do you do about a party whose presumptive front-runner can blow the ONE question that he KNOWS he’ll be asked, when given a DECADE to prepare an answer – and yet, that party still stands a fair shot of winning the Presidency?
I suppose the answer is (as always) to argue for sane policy, rational and responsive politicians, and mobilize unlikely voters. But is this really the best place to do it?
And for what it's worth, this is a perfect example of what Tad was NOT asking for in his post looking for deep insights. I'm out of those for the moment.
There's that guy who blames Obama for Obamacare not working for him despite, you know, refusing to sign up for it... and getting partly bailed out by (mostly) liberals on his go-fund-me drive.
Loosely-sourced (and not particularly logical) allegations that it wasn't American intel that got us OBL, but instead that the Pakistanis had him and sold him out -- he's still dead either way, so so what?
And not just whackadoodle conspiracy theories that the military is going to use a set of exercises of the sort they normally do anyhow, to take over Texas and herd dissidents into subterranean FEMA prison camps underneath WalMart stores -- but elected politicians who are too desperate, cynical, or cowed, to call this stuff out as the lunacy it is.
A Presidential candidate saying he's running, then backtracking as soon as he realized he'd said so (for campaign finance reasons). And then there were the Iraq war comments... And he's supposed to be the smart one.
Plus all of the police issues, the President leading Republicans against Democrats on the Trans-Pacific Partnership fast-track vote, and so much more. Really, where to start?
But that's the point, isn't it? Have so much "out there" that sane people give up in frustration and marginally-informed voters stop caring. Some people thrive on the "win the news cycle on Twitter" warfare, and I'm glad they do; I can't really keep up with that level of detail and for most people it's probably not all that healthy to even try.
Though, to be honest, I’m probably doing exactly the same thing here. This is turning out to be a scattershot “Ball of Confusion” or “The End of the World as We Know It” list of screwed up things – but that’s not really my intent here. Years ago, or even recently, it was enough to point out historical or procedural inaccuracies, cherry-picking, and mathematical impossibilities. But how do you argue with someone who is sincerely convinced (or fakes such sincerity; the effects are the same) that the American military is poised to conquer Texas? How can you reach someone who’s convinced the ACA doesn’t work when his active non-participation is the reason he’s ineligible for it for the next half-year? What do you do about a party whose presumptive front-runner can blow the ONE question that he KNOWS he’ll be asked, when given a DECADE to prepare an answer – and yet, that party still stands a fair shot of winning the Presidency?
I suppose the answer is (as always) to argue for sane policy, rational and responsive politicians, and mobilize unlikely voters. But is this really the best place to do it?
And for what it's worth, this is a perfect example of what Tad was NOT asking for in his post looking for deep insights. I'm out of those for the moment.
