Just when you think MAGA couldn't get any more ludicrous, I've been reading that there is a new political conspiracy theory running through social media: the Super Bowl is fixed!! Yep, that's right, apparently it was ordained by Biden and the Democratic party that the Kansas City Chiefs should win the play-off and reach the final, so that Taylor Swift can come on during the half-time show and endorse him, while she stands next to her boyfriend, KCC tight end Travis Kelce. While that conspiracy theory is, in and of itself, hilarious enough, and equally troubling that some might genuinely believe it, what has also been eye-opening is the criticism by some on the Fox network of Taylor Swift as a result. One even tried to accuse her fans of idolising her, which he then explained the Bible said was a sin! Yep, from the party that idolises Trump, that treat him like a messiah, comes new levels of utter fuckwittery! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yep. According to them, Taylor Swift is a "pentagon asset", and her and Travis Kelce are an "artificially culturally propped-up couple." As a result the Pentagon will step in to ensure that Kansas City wins the superbowl, so that Swift's endorsement of Biden has more impact. “I think – and I’ve said this, I’ve taken a lot of crap for this online – I think they’re using Taylor Swift right now. They’re gearing up for an operation to use Taylor Swift in the election against everything: against Trump, for Biden, they’re gonna get her and all you know they call them the Swifties they’re going to turn those into voters, you watch.” “Taylor Swift is an op. It’s all fake. You’re being played.” “The Democrats’ Taylor Swift election interference psyop is happening in the open. It’s not a coincidence that current and former Biden admin officials are propping up Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. They are going to use Taylor Swift as the poster child for their pro-abortion GOTV Campaign.” “The NFL is totally RIGGED for the Kansas City Chiefs, Taylor Swift, Mr. Pfizer (Travis Kelce). All to spread DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA. Calling it now: KC wins, goes to Super Bowl, Swift comes out at the halftime show and ‘endorses’ Joe Biden with Kelce at midfield. It’s all been an op since day one." “With all the unneeded and unwanted Taylor coverage at the games. KC’s journey to the Super Bowl – totally scripted. Next … Travis and Taylor together at the Super Bowl, appearing happy, and in love. Then KC wins. And then later announcing their support for Biden. Coincidental? No. Bought and paid for couple. SMH.” “Have you ever wondered why or how she blew up like this? Well around four years ago the Pentagon’s psychological operations unit floated turning Taylor Swift into an asset, during a Nato meeting.” Another poster pointed out that she's 34 and can probably only have two kids before she's too old, and has had sex with a lot of guys, so why would Kelce want her? It's a SCAM! Or he's gay, one of the two. Yet another MAGA type noted that the numbers all add up: Taylor Swift's favorite number is 13, which is odd to begin with. The Chiefs are playing the 49ers. 4+9=13! This is Superbowl 58. 5+8=13! If she goes to the Superbowl, it will be the 13th game she attended! The game is on Feb 11th, or 2/11. 2+11=13! The flight from Tokyo to Las Vegas will be . . . 13 hours! There's no other reasonable explanation. This was PLANNED!
And anyway I thought all the MAGAs stopped watching the NFL because of the kneeling! How are they even seeing her?
Is Taylor Swift real? I assumed that she was AI generated. Has anyone seen her in person? Why would a superstar date a tight end? Can anyone here name her top 5 hits? Doesn't she give off an androgynous vibe? Why would Travis date her? Is he even real?
Let's see - Inflation dropping Lowest unemployment in decades Economy strongest it's been in years Insulin prices for seniors plummeting - now capped at $35 a month Over $1 trillion to fix airports, roads, bridges and dams Ending the COVID pandemic in the US Support for climate change mitigation and LGBT soldiers Sounds pretty effective to me.
No, I don't think I will. That ball's in the Dem court. I just figured it might be a difficult thing to do.
1. Fluctuates 2 is that true? 3. X 4. Cool 5. 34 Trillion dollar deficit 6. Really 7. Is anyone not? Considering the political arena in today's world I might agree.
He caused inflation all over the world? I had no idea he was so powerful! But I do agree on record debt to GDP ratio, although it is now coming down.
I didn't say he caused it all over the world. Stimulating the economy while shutting production down is the definition of inflation and then the admin was "surprised" when inflation was persistent and then raised rates too fast. They just don't seem to be especially good at this. There there was student loan forgiveness and the "deficit reduction act" which was just a spending program formerly known as "Build Back Better". These aren't the best responses in an inflationary environment. Why pretend that they are" This isn't a plug for Trump. He is clearly unacceptable. It is a legitimate critique of Biden. He is not the best President to have, considering his policies, in a time with record debt. He seems to be all we have but that doesn't require praise where none is warranted.
Another cause of inflation is the depression of demand due to a pandemic, followed by the natural atrophy of supply chains, followed by a surge in demand after the end of the pandemic. He could have managed it better, definitely. But that effect happened all over the world, and it was due to the invisible hand of the free market regulating supply and demand. I didn't say they were. I said that the inflation we saw would have happened with or without any actions by Biden.[/QUOTE]
1) Of course it fluctuates. It's also at record lows. 2) The unemployment rate was under 4% for 16 months under Biden. Under Trump it was under 4% for 13 months. The last time we saw such a low unemployment rate for that long was 1973. 3) X 4) X 5) I said "Ending the COVID pandemic in the US" and you said "34 Trillion dollar deficit." One is not a counterargument to the other. 6) You said "Is anyone not?" to climate change mitigation and support for LGBT soldiers. Yes, conservatives oppose anything that has do to with mitigating climate change, to EV incentives to renewable energy to appliance efficiency standards. Conservatives also oppose any support for trans soldiers, including medical care.
The monetary inflation was caused by doubling the money supply. Goods inflation is what would have happened just due to Covid, as you suggest.
Yes. She's not AI generated - although what music of hers I've heard I've thought could well have been. No. Why not? I can't. She has deliberately done so in the past, but generally I don't think so. Well, when one person likes another person in a certain way... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - although to misquote Mrs Merton: "What first attracted you to billionaire Taylor Swift?" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. And yes, he is real.
OK, I guess the CIA doesn't recruit people who aren't real but why are you so interested in Taylor Swift and do you work for the CIA?
I think I like how the republicans' voted in Nevada. I could support none of the above. Glad it finally won.
And yet ... well, okay, first: Actually, James, thank you for pointing to #175; unfortunately, I linked to #193 in this thread instead of #2↗ in the "Blind Spot" thread; what I quoted was from the other thread. It's a direct quote: "The answer, I think, has something to do with being consistently and repeatedly fed a whole bunch of lies, and coming to believe them." But if viability, i.e., why it is even possible, is still a bit of a mystery to you, then your analysis in that other post was entirely speculative. Moreover, consider the contrast: To the one, "progressive media and commentators and analysts might just be a little too nice about the whole business"; to the other— • "That somebody - whoever it was - strikes me as somebody who was on the ball back in 2016." • "There are clues to be found, if you put in a little effort in trying to find out the truth, rather than just making assumptions that make you feel comfortable." • "But I guess it's simpler for some to try to blame all the Trump supporters for being bad people to the core. Because that requires less thinking, I guess. It also means you're free to demonise people and misrepresent (some of) them. And some people just can't help themselves when it comes to trying to demonise other people." —remember what you're agreeing with, a proposition that: • "One thing that Trump's election should have taught all of us 'liberals' is that we shouldn't be merely dismissing the views of people who voted for him as obviously crazy, or motivated by racism or sexism or any of those other bad things." That is to say, are progressives being too nice about the whole business, or are liberals being too mean to these rightists? See, the thing is, what you and the NYT editor, as well as the 2016 proposition, all have in common is that the narratives you tell presuppose an ahistorical political circumstance. As I suggested above↑, one of the reasons they might actually get what they think they want is that enough people would help them along the way. To a certain degree, we can probably discuss that part of the mystery in the Blind Spot thread, instead of weighing this one down. While voter behavior is relevant to this thread, we could easily bury the broader discussion. Additionally, part of that other discussion will also overlap with your thread about the prospect of civil war↗, a point that arises specifically because the Republican officials who won elections in Texas can't get what they want by abiding the law. And, y'know, this mess isn't new; compared to the question of who lied to conservative voters, it's worth observing that we are experiencing the late end of what began over a decade ago when Speaker Boehner failed to pass an immigration bill, told President Obama to use executive authority to address the issue, and then sued to stop him from doing so. But, yeah, even in your civil war thread, I reached back↗ to 2015 on the point that conservatives are "doing it to themselves; they're setting themselves up for a revolt". † Still, the thing about agreement is that the detail matters. There are a few paragraphs on American media, but there is a certain sterility about it, kind of a, ¿Yeah, and? For me, though, the discussion in the other thread probably colors my perception of what is missing. The thing is, what you describe is not new. To wit, "However, thay are encouraged. Constantly and actively." Yeah, and? And when you talk about declining political power, it's like you're trying to piece together something that's already known. But when we compare this analysis to your speculative romanticization of Trump voters in the Blind Spot thread, it would appear you're sending mixed signals. When, in this thread, you say, "Another way to put it is this," you then spend two paragraphs doing what you disagree with in the other thread. It is not, for instance, that you are somehow wrong to juxtapose left-leaning media, but, rather, that the superficial telling implicitly equalizes and thereby understates the significance of right-wing media. If we gather up enough of those superficial false equivalences, you'll find they can bear significant influence over basic narratives. It's also a little late to parse out "conservatives" from Trump supporters. That talking point is actually kind of a tell, generally speaking, but in your case it's also thematic. The short form, as of about sixteen months ago↗, is that while it seems important for some to separate the two, I just don't see how that works compared to the last forty years, at least. And you seem to have missed the point about intelligent design: Those folks are part of who you're crying for, James. Consider "the whole thing about fearing a decline or loss of power, resenting it and then vigorously demanding their 'right' to it." Are you going to blame that on right-wing media? Meanwhile, compared to your speculative fancy in the other thread, we can only wonder at the tack. And, really, after everything else, we're down to ignorance and noncompetency? Okay, but that "bit of a mystery" shouldn't really be so mysterious, and that "peculiar sort of blindness and naïveté" both discredits Trump voters and would dissent from your hyperbolic analysis casting those people as victims. It's like your point about how they think they're sticking it to the Man. Sure, whatever, but you're kind of late: • 2016↗: "Do Donald Trump's voters actually care? Is that question remotely relevant? Once again we face the linchpin of the great #trumpswindle, whether Trump voters are marks or in on the grift". • 2017↗: "We're watching the emergence of that long-rumored silent majority; whether or not it actually achieves a proper majority is its own question, and depends on a fundamental #trumpswindle question about who is a mark or in on the grift." • 2019↗: "We can look at low-key grift like our neighbor pushes and wonder if he is a mark or thinks himself in on the swindle." • 2019↗: "The irony arises because Republican anti-institutionalism elects its antithesis, and this actually seems to be the point, and so obviously that one of the reasons I use the hashtag #trumpswindle is to wonder if President Trump's supporters think themselves in on the grift." • 2019↗: "… the enduring question of whether Trump supporters think themselves in on the grift … It's already clear that regardless of whether they think they're in on the grift, they are, in the Trump outlook, somem manner of easy marks." • 2020↗: "Are his voters marks, or ―... okay, yeah, they're marks, sure, but do they really think they're in on the grift?" • 2020↗: "… recall a basic juxtaposition: In my bleedingheart world, it is possible for you to have fallen for the rightist grift, taken part in it, and served it well for years, and still, technically, be innocent. Then again, many people would not appreciate that sense of being forgiven for being a helpless victim …" • 2020↗: "Are Trump supporters merely marks, or are they in on the grift? Inasmuch as they can be considered in on the grift, they are as anxious or marks and useful of tools as any con artist could hope for." In re voter behavior, sure, it's relevant to election prognostication, but it's also messy inasmuch as the words just pile up as we explore the history relevant to this or that bit of wide-eyed, presupposing credulity. Like that last, actually, from 2020: It's about the cruelty of the Trump agenda, and observes Serwer's analysis, ca. 2018, why Trump voters "will let him get away with anything, no matter what it costs them". It's a bit different than your description of Trump voters as victims, and in the moment it occurs to wonder if it's just simpler for you to pretend they are so weak and naïve and gullible. For instance, when Nikki Haley blames Obama for racial division, or aruges the murder of nine Black people by a white supremacist complaining about Black people taking over the country wasn't about racism, there really isn't any question who she's pandering to, or why. It's not always a question of being half a world away. Rather, you're just not watching all that closely, and, sure, whatever, it's another country, to you, but if the reasons why such fallacious wishful thinking might carry forward are really so mysterious, maybe that's on you.
I wrote that December 22, 2023, over 2 months ago. And now they say they will rule on this after all. They just delayed for a couple months for some reason. I wonder why? Not to worry, they are promising a quick resolution to this questions by the summer time! Sigh.
