this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
386 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3380 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Even Rudy Giuliani thought her plan to seek blanket immunity, before breaching Georgia voting machines, was “over the top,” according to a new book by reporters Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman.

As allies of Donald Trump schemed to seize voting machines in swing states after the 2020 election, Sidney Powell proposed issuing preemptive pardons—which the team described as “hunting licenses”—to shield them from legal liability, according to a new book by investigative reporters Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman.

“I need six to eight pardons,” the former Trump attorney said in a Virginia planning meeting, according to Find Me the Votes, excerpts of which were reviewed by Vanity Fair ahead of its January 30 publication date. “What we need is a ‘hunting license’ that provides top cover for ops,” a member of Powell’s team wrote to Lin Wood, another Trump lawyer involved in the effort to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, according to Isikoff and Klaidman.

According to Isikoff and Klaidman, the team asked Michael Trimarco, an associate of Rudy Giuliani’s, to get the former New York City mayor to approve the pardon proposal. But Giuliani “dismissed the idea as over the top,” according to the book. Trimarco apparently agreed, recalling that he thought, “What the fuck?” as the group mulled the idea.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GONADS125@feddit.de 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think why they do not care is because they don't "believe" it. The more important question (IMO) is: "How can they deny this blatant reality?"

The answer is because they shield themselves from reality with Olympics level mental gymnastics, rationalizing away cognitive dissonance and living in their own deluded reality.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The answer is because they shield themselves from reality with Olympics level mental gymnastics, rationalizing away cognitive dissonance and living in their own deluded reality.

Oh my, no. It's nothing that complicated. These are conservative minds, and the entirety of their worldview can be boiled down to one question:

Is this good for us?

It has nothing to do with denial or cognitive dissonance, because they simply are not thinking that hard about anything.

Is this good for us?

If the answer is yes, then everything else is negotiable. Reality is negotiable. Nothing is absolute unless it absolutely benefits the conservative self.

Is Trump a liar? Is Trump a serial rapist? Is Trump a national security threat?

Is it good for us if he is? No, so he isn't.

Or maybe he is, but it's not that big of a deal because it is better for us if it's not a big deal.

Was the election stolen? It would be good for us if it was, so it was. We don't have to prove it, because we already know it was because it would be good for us if it was. Why are we still arguing about this? Arguing about it is bad for us, so just accept that it was stolen and anything anyone did trying to prove it was fully justified because it would have been good for us if they had been successful.

Is abortion murder? Calling it that gets angry people to vote for us, so it is. Medical science? That's not good for us, so it's not real. Maybe it's a conspiracy or the devil or immigrant trans lesbian atheists, but that's not important right now so there's no need to defend any of that ridiculousness.

You cannot argue with a conservative. You cannot point to the flaws in their logic, or provide concrete evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Changing the mind of a conservative is like changing the direction on a revolving door. You're still either in or you're out.

Realize this, and accept that you are not dealing with a rational ideology. It's a dog with a ball that wants you to throw but won't let go of the ball. It's not complicated, there's no deeper hidden communication coordinating all of the conservatives to orchestrate a big conspiracy. It's simple narcissism. And it should be treated the same way you would treat a narcissist.

Set boundaries. Ignore theirs because they are not fixed.

Justify your boundaries with facts. Ignore their arguments because they are not based on facts. You're not trying to convince them, you are justifying your position for the next rational person coming along. You don't need to disprove every one of their firehose of bullshit arguments, you just need to prove your case and stand your ground.

Do not compromise or negotiate with a conservative. They will not be satisfied with whatever you give up, and they will take whatever extreme position is necessary to make the "middle" wherever they want to be.

Demand your rights, and accept no substitutes. The law exists to protect each of us from tyranny, and the conservative craves the position of tyrant. Your rights will not be given to you by a conservative, you will have to fight for them.

Remember this, and you will not be surprised by the hypocrisy of a conservative. You will never be confused about how they could possibly ignore facts and believe what they want. Your expectations will align with reality.

[–] GONADS125@feddit.de 7 points 9 months ago

The "Is it good for us? Let me modify my interpretation/beliefs" act you're describing is in itself rationalizing. What you're focusing on is their motivation for doing so. And yes, it is a simple motivation.

You are right that there is no reasoning with radical groups like MAGA/QAnon/mainstream conservatives. We cannot pull them out of their extremism with reason. They have to want to change themselves.

Trying to persuade family who have fallen into this extremism typically backfires and results in frustration, anger, and hostility. This tends to just push the family member(s) further into the community they feel "gets them."

All of this is cited and elaborated on in this blog post of mine. (I have ads turned off and do not benefit in any way from my blog.)

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

this guy spectacles