The last Republican President to enter the White House with the popular vote did so in 1989.
Yet, when they win, they behave as though they have the mandate that comes with a landslide.
I'd like to speak the obvious necessary things about the Republican Party, the most central of which is that this is not an organization that is participating in democracy.
Rather, they are cynically utilizing our democracy's vulnerabilities.
The last Republican President to enter the White House with the popular vote did so in 1989.
Yet, when they win, they behave as though they have the mandate that comes with a landslide.
They give out trillions in corporate welfare.
They start torture programs.
They start surveillance programs.
They lie us into wars.
They are not interested in democracy. They are not participating in a democracy.
They stall. They filibuster. They delay. They engage in deliberate sabotage to gain political advantage.
They are not participating in our democracy.
Russia didn't capture the Republican Party. Russia just wants to upend Western Democracy, which happens to be exactly what Republicans also want.
So they were happy for the help, but they didn't need it.
Russia's basically just somebody paid to make a distraction while the heist team hits the bank.
It just so happens they both have pretty much the same mission with the same method: Destroy American democracy by exploiting its weaknesses.
So, what are those weaknesses?
The electoral college is one of these. The way the Senate is allocated is another.
But there are other weaknesses we can do something about now.
These are 'weaknesses' that in healthier times are strengths, that have been leveraged against us.
* An appetite for compromise
* A mutual trust in the opposition's good intentions
* A desire to be fair
* An interest in keeping an open mind to other perspectives
* A desire to find common ground
These are all good things.
They prove that contempt by constantly and cynically using our desire for them to make us play by rules they have no intention of playing by.
They don't care about finding common ground.
They don't care about what the people want.
They don't care about standards.
To name only the most glaringly obvious of all available tells, I'll refer you to the president they elected.
We HAVE to recognize that they are not playing by those rules.
And, since they are in power, that means those aren't the rules.
More from Julius Ghost👻 (Read Pinned Tweet!)
Observe: the lie that "government" is a monolithic entity, from which we are somehow separate.
Government is how we organize, manage and maintain our society, but to acknowledge that is to acknowledge society, and one's responsibility to organize, manage, and maintain it.
Government didn't close churches. Churches closed because people with something more than a childishly selfish view of the world understood their responsibility to the shared life of a society, and government is how that understanding was operationalized and delivered.
Nor does government militarize police. The police is militarized because people with a fearful, hateful or selfish view of the world understand a militarized police will operationalize & deliver that fear, hate, and greed through the mechanism of government.
Government is *us*.
Those who now align with a party actively working to dissolve and demolish democracy in our country do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Democracy allows people they fear and hate to be government with them.
So they hate democracy, and government.
People who align with a party standing in the way of any solution, any maintenance, any governance, do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Better to die of sickness, disease, and neglect than allow those they hate and fear to be government with them.
Government is how we organize, manage and maintain our society, but to acknowledge that is to acknowledge society, and one's responsibility to organize, manage, and maintain it.
#COVID19 didn\u2019t close churches. Government did.
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) December 28, 2020
Government didn't close churches. Churches closed because people with something more than a childishly selfish view of the world understood their responsibility to the shared life of a society, and government is how that understanding was operationalized and delivered.
Nor does government militarize police. The police is militarized because people with a fearful, hateful or selfish view of the world understand a militarized police will operationalize & deliver that fear, hate, and greed through the mechanism of government.
Government is *us*.
Those who now align with a party actively working to dissolve and demolish democracy in our country do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Democracy allows people they fear and hate to be government with them.
So they hate democracy, and government.
People who align with a party standing in the way of any solution, any maintenance, any governance, do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Better to die of sickness, disease, and neglect than allow those they hate and fear to be government with them.
If you ever want to consider how committed our society is to the foundational lie that life must be earned, and those who fail to earn it must die, consider that the proposition “giving everyone money to spend would be bad for the economy” is widely accepted as truth.
“Giving money to people in poverty solves poverty” is an obvious truth, which needs (another) study for proof, for the same reason that this finding will be ignored (again).
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
It’s not about saving money.
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
The manifestations are everywhere. From the overt, gleefully cruel hostility of conservatism toward people in poverty, of course. But also hidden in almost everyone's assumptions.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example.
Even the reversal—a desire to prevent aid from going to "undeserving" wealthy who don't need it (true)—leads us to create obstacles to aid people in poverty often can't overcome, but wealthy people can.
Which is why wealthy people like means
A new study found that giving low-income workers money upfront in their work period helped alleviate the mental burden of their financial problems and allowed them to be more productive \u2014 echoing other findings on the psychological impacts of poverty.https://t.co/zdxItTLDLZ
— NPR (@NPR) February 3, 2021
“Giving money to people in poverty solves poverty” is an obvious truth, which needs (another) study for proof, for the same reason that this finding will be ignored (again).
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
It’s not about saving money.
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
The manifestations are everywhere. From the overt, gleefully cruel hostility of conservatism toward people in poverty, of course. But also hidden in almost everyone's assumptions.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example.
Charity isn't primarily an act.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) November 10, 2019
Before the act comes an alignment.
Charity is the natural fruit of a deep alignment with the virtue of generosity.
It sure shouldn't be a delivery mechanism for one's own beliefs about worthiness.
Even the reversal—a desire to prevent aid from going to "undeserving" wealthy who don't need it (true)—leads us to create obstacles to aid people in poverty often can't overcome, but wealthy people can.
Which is why wealthy people like means
Whenever someone proposes a means-testing solution, it's an indication they've internalized the lie, foundational to the United States, that some people deserve life and others don't.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) December 18, 2020
It's an expensive lie.
Imagine if Christians actually had to live according to their Bibles.
Imagine if Christians actually sacrificed themselves for the good of those they considered their enemies, with no thought of any recompense or reward, but only to honor the essential humanity of all people.
Imagine if Christians sold all their possessions and gave it to the poor.
Imagine if they relentlessly stood up for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.
Imagine if they worshipped a God whose response to political power was to reject it.
Or cancelled all debt owed them?
Imagine if the primary orientation of Christians was what others needed, not what they deserved.
Imagine Christians with no interest in protecting what they had.
Imagine Christians who made room for other beliefs, and honored the truths they found there.
Imagine Christians who saved their forgiveness and mercy for others, rather than saving it for themselves.
Whose empathy went first to the abused, not the abuser.
Who didn't see tax as theft; who didn't need to control distribution of public good to the deserving.
"If they start canceling these American presidents, they're gonna come after Bible characters next. Mark my words" -- Fox News "news side" host Bill Hemmer pic.twitter.com/qTPV0NERv8
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 19, 2021
Imagine if Christians actually sacrificed themselves for the good of those they considered their enemies, with no thought of any recompense or reward, but only to honor the essential humanity of all people.
Imagine if Christians sold all their possessions and gave it to the poor.
Imagine if they relentlessly stood up for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.
Imagine if they worshipped a God whose response to political power was to reject it.
Or cancelled all debt owed them?
Imagine if the primary orientation of Christians was what others needed, not what they deserved.
Imagine Christians with no interest in protecting what they had.
Imagine Christians who made room for other beliefs, and honored the truths they found there.
Imagine Christians who saved their forgiveness and mercy for others, rather than saving it for themselves.
Whose empathy went first to the abused, not the abuser.
Who didn't see tax as theft; who didn't need to control distribution of public good to the deserving.
Bullshit.
I have family members all the way up the Fox News Facebook misinformation hole, and they didn’t get vaccinated because they felt respected; they got vaccinated because their children told them they wouldn’t get to see their grandchildren until they got vaccinated.
3 observations:
People don't tend to change their worldviews from a place of comfort.
When selfish assholes decide to behave like selfish assholes, the problem isn't that others aren't coddling their feelings enough.
Selfish assholes aren't everyone else's job to fix.
Selfish assholes would love for you to *think* they are everybody else's job to fix.
It puts them at the center and in control.
That means when they act like a selfish asshole, it's *your* fault. You should have been more persuasive. Daddy hits you because you made him angry.
Truth is, vaccine resistors are behaving this way because their feelings ARE being respected.
Malicious media entities created self-feeding networks that reassure selfish assholes they can be selfish assholes and still be respected.
Antvax, racist, sexist, all are welcome.
The way you make a selfish asshole stop being a selfish asshole is well known.
You draw a clear boundary and then you enforce that boundary. You tell them that their bullshit won't be tolerated, and then you don't tolerate their bullshit.
I think we all know that, actually.
I have family members all the way up the Fox News Facebook misinformation hole, and they didn’t get vaccinated because they felt respected; they got vaccinated because their children told them they wouldn’t get to see their grandchildren until they got vaccinated.
Vaccine resisters can\u2019t be persuaded if they feel disrespected | Opinion by @michaelbd https://t.co/nwszm47IOf
— National Review (@NRO) July 16, 2021
3 observations:
People don't tend to change their worldviews from a place of comfort.
When selfish assholes decide to behave like selfish assholes, the problem isn't that others aren't coddling their feelings enough.
Selfish assholes aren't everyone else's job to fix.
Selfish assholes would love for you to *think* they are everybody else's job to fix.
It puts them at the center and in control.
That means when they act like a selfish asshole, it's *your* fault. You should have been more persuasive. Daddy hits you because you made him angry.
Truth is, vaccine resistors are behaving this way because their feelings ARE being respected.
Malicious media entities created self-feeding networks that reassure selfish assholes they can be selfish assholes and still be respected.
Antvax, racist, sexist, all are welcome.
The way you make a selfish asshole stop being a selfish asshole is well known.
You draw a clear boundary and then you enforce that boundary. You tell them that their bullshit won't be tolerated, and then you don't tolerate their bullshit.
I think we all know that, actually.
More from All
You May Also Like
First thread of the year because I have time during MCO. As requested, a thread on the gods and spirits of Malay folk religion. Some are indigenous, some are of Indian origin, some have Islamic
Before I begin, it might be worth explaining the Malay conception of the spirit world. At its deepest level, Malay religious belief is animist. All living beings and even certain objects are said to have a soul. Natural phenomena are either controlled by or personified as spirits
Although these beings had to be respected, not all of them were powerful enough to be considered gods. Offerings would be made to the spirits that had greater influence on human life. Spells and incantations would invoke their
Two known examples of such elemental spirits that had god-like status are Raja Angin (king of the wind) and Mambang Tali Arus (spirit of river currents). There were undoubtedly many more which have been lost to time
Contact with ancient India brought the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism to SEA. What we now call Hinduism similarly developed in India out of native animism and the more formal Vedic tradition. This can be seen in the multitude of sacred animals and location-specific Hindu gods
i wonder if you can make a thread bout witchcraft in malaysia.. or list of our own local gods/deites..
— r a y a \U0001f319 (@lcvelylilith) February 20, 2020
Before I begin, it might be worth explaining the Malay conception of the spirit world. At its deepest level, Malay religious belief is animist. All living beings and even certain objects are said to have a soul. Natural phenomena are either controlled by or personified as spirits
Although these beings had to be respected, not all of them were powerful enough to be considered gods. Offerings would be made to the spirits that had greater influence on human life. Spells and incantations would invoke their
Animist ceremonies of a religious or magical nature were normally held for the purpose of divination or making a request. This would either be done at a keramat or at a shrine similar to the Thai spirit houses or Chinese roadside shrines pic.twitter.com/I1hliyi0x3
— \u2745\u1710\u170b\u1713\u170e (@uglyluhan) June 16, 2019
Two known examples of such elemental spirits that had god-like status are Raja Angin (king of the wind) and Mambang Tali Arus (spirit of river currents). There were undoubtedly many more which have been lost to time
Contact with ancient India brought the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism to SEA. What we now call Hinduism similarly developed in India out of native animism and the more formal Vedic tradition. This can be seen in the multitude of sacred animals and location-specific Hindu gods
