Andrew Tate, Republican and trump Supporter

[Phil1111 1,183]

It's been quite the fall from ...wherever, for this MAGA trump supporter. Conspicuous consumer, "Andrew Tate says women belong in the home, can’t drive, and are a man’s property. He also thinks rape victims must “bear responsibility” for their attacks and dates women aged 18–19 because he can “make an imprint” on them, according to videos posted online."

Like trump he started his own university. "One of the first things you learn in an introductory video for Andrew Tate’s “Hustlers University 2.0,” his suite of courses that thousands of people pay a monthly subscription fee for, is that his two favorite things seem to be making money and emotional manipulation."

Edited December 30, 2022 by Phil1111

[billvon 3,118]

25 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

It's been quite the fall from ...wherever, for this MAGA trump supporter. Conspicuous consumer, "Andrew Tate says women belong in the home, can’t drive, and are a man’s property. He also thinks rape victims must “bear responsibility” for their attacks and dates women aged 18–19 because he can “make an imprint” on them, according to videos posted online."

Add a few sexual assault accusations and a record of fraud and he could be the next GOP presidential candidate.

[olofscience 492]

Oh, and he hates skydiving too.

[kallend 2,148]

4 hours ago, The Hundredth Monkey said:

  . . . .are sent to Kamel-toe's house . . . 
 

Sixth grade logic to accompany sixth grade name calling.

[gowlerk 2,275]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Sixth grade logic to accompany sixth grade name calling.

Junior high misogyny.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Sixth grade logic to accompany sixth grade name calling.

Do you expect any different from the guy that believes in 'nano-thermite'?

[ryoder 1,590]

More bad news for the poor little fella:

Andrew Tate’s Very Manly Car Collection Is Seized by Romanian Authorities

[Coreece 190]

On 12/30/2022 at 6:05 PM, billvon said:

Add a few sexual assault accusations and a record of fraud and he could be the next GOP presidential candidate.

Not without the help of the DNC, apparently:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/03/the-democrats-are-purposely-boosting-far-right-republicans-this-will-backfire

An alarming number of people employed as professional political strategists by the Democratic party do not seem to understand what “politics” actually means. If this sounds too cute to be true, think of it another way: if all of the professional political strategists employed by the Democratic party do understand what “politics” actually means, they are negligent and willing to do harmful things for short-term gain. Either way, it ain’t good.

The most glaring manifestation of this in the current election cycle is the fact that Democrats across the country spent millions of dollars to boost the candidacies of right-wing Maga candidates in the Republican primaries, on the theory that those extremists would be easier to defeat in the general election.

The Washington Post found that Democrats had spent close to $20m in eight states on ads meant to elevate the profile of far-right candidates and election deniers running for governorships and for Congress. A number of those candidates, like the maniacal Christian zealots Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania and Darren Bailey in Illinois, did in fact win their primaries, setting up, in theory, easier races for the Democrats in those states to win, because, in theory, swing voters prefer not to vote for lunatics.

A common objection to this strategy is, “What if one of those lunatics wins? And you helped him? Wouldn’t you feel stupid?” Sure. But that objection, reasonable as it is, accepts the underlying premise that the rightness or wrongness of spending millions of dollars to boost the support of dangerous religious fascists within one of America’s two main political parties comes down to whether or not those dangerous religious fascists win the 2022 elections. The Democratic strategists who engineered this will say: “They won’t win, so the strategy was sound.” And that is where their blinkered view of the nature of politics begins to show its true futility.

Because – my god, it’s hard to believe – politics is more than the next election. Yes! Time marches on endlessly into the future! And the things that we do today help to shape the things that happen next in an infinite and largely unpredictable chain of cause and effect! It’s crazy, I know. It is now accepted as conventional wisdom, for example, that perhaps it was not strategically wise for the United States to arm mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan fighting the USSR in the 80s, because later on some of those same people with those same weapons were fighting the US.

But this same sort of elementary insight has not permeated the Democratic consulting world. If you help to make the Maga candidates stronger today, it is possible that that will have negative social and political consequences even if they do not win the election in November 2022. Reality, which is real, unfolds slower and longer than a political campaign, which is an artificial construct with an arbitrary timeline. Duh.

Imagine for a moment the possibility that the goal of “politics” is not just winning the next election, but rather reshaping the deepest power arrangements of the world in a more just way. In this conception of politics, the important thing is not just bringing along a handful of high officials in order to engineer a 51% voting majority in Congress, but rather evolving the views of hundreds of millions of people in a way that will bring the officials along with them.

Electoral politics follows social change, not vice versa. And “changing society,” rather than “targeting a narrow slice of swing voters,” requires deep and ongoing organizing – the sort of organizing that creates movements, not campaigns.

When you take a moment to step back and view history as the endless stream of struggle that it is, it is not hard to see why it is dumb to dedicate resources to making Maga Republicans more visible and viable within their own party. You are promoting an awful ideology in hopes of winning votes – but in the long run, politics is a battle of ideology. The votes follow the ideology.

The consultants are fighting on the wrong battleground, and no matter how many polls they have, they are not clever enough to predict the chaotic long-run effects of fueling a movement that is the opposite of the movement we should be trying to build.

Part of wisdom is understanding your limitations. Neither you nor I nor the Democratic National Committee can predict the future with confidence. What we can do is to fight for justice today. We can do the hard work of organizing today and tomorrow. We can try to push society in the right direction. By changing society itself, we can make the ground more fertile for political candidates who will do the right thing.

The historic figures who have done the most to promote justice did not do it by deviously clever manipulations of voter data. They did it by fighting for stuff that was right. Spending money to try to dupe hapless Republican voters into backing the goofiest fascist is not just stupid; it goes against justice. Tricking people is not part of organizing.

These sophisticated Democratic strategists are pouring poison into the well that we all, sooner or later, will have to drink from.

 

. . .Disgusting.

[headoverheels 334]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Not without the help of the DNC, apparently:

 

 Actually the DNC strategy was effective in a few spots.   I haven't seen anything to show that they supported Santos in the primary -- have you?

 

[gowlerk 2,275]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Not without the help of the DNC, apparently:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/03/the-democrats-are-purposely-boosting-far-right-republicans-this-will-backfire

An alarming number of people employed as professional political strategists by the Democratic party do not seem to understand what “politics” actually means. If this sounds too cute to be true, think of it another way: if all of the professional political strategists employed by the Democratic party do understand what “politics” actually means, they are negligent and willing to do harmful things for short-term gain. Either way, it ain’t good.

The most glaring manifestation of this in the current election cycle is the fact that Democrats across the country spent millions of dollars to boost the candidacies of right-wing Maga candidates in the Republican primaries, on the theory that those extremists would be easier to defeat in the general election.

The Washington Post found that Democrats had spent close to $20m in eight states on ads meant to elevate the profile of far-right candidates and election deniers running for governorships and for Congress. A number of those candidates, like the maniacal Christian zealots Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania and Darren Bailey in Illinois, did in fact win their primaries, setting up, in theory, easier races for the Democrats in those states to win, because, in theory, swing voters prefer not to vote for lunatics.

A common objection to this strategy is, “What if one of those lunatics wins? And you helped him? Wouldn’t you feel stupid?” Sure. But that objection, reasonable as it is, accepts the underlying premise that the rightness or wrongness of spending millions of dollars to boost the support of dangerous religious fascists within one of America’s two main political parties comes down to whether or not those dangerous religious fascists win the 2022 elections. The Democratic strategists who engineered this will say: “They won’t win, so the strategy was sound.” And that is where their blinkered view of the nature of politics begins to show its true futility.

Because – my god, it’s hard to believe – politics is more than the next election. Yes! Time marches on endlessly into the future! And the things that we do today help to shape the things that happen next in an infinite and largely unpredictable chain of cause and effect! It’s crazy, I know. It is now accepted as conventional wisdom, for example, that perhaps it was not strategically wise for the United States to arm mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan fighting the USSR in the 80s, because later on some of those same people with those same weapons were fighting the US.

But this same sort of elementary insight has not permeated the Democratic consulting world. If you help to make the Maga candidates stronger today, it is possible that that will have negative social and political consequences even if they do not win the election in November 2022. Reality, which is real, unfolds slower and longer than a political campaign, which is an artificial construct with an arbitrary timeline. Duh.

Imagine for a moment the possibility that the goal of “politics” is not just winning the next election, but rather reshaping the deepest power arrangements of the world in a more just way. In this conception of politics, the important thing is not just bringing along a handful of high officials in order to engineer a 51% voting majority in Congress, but rather evolving the views of hundreds of millions of people in a way that will bring the officials along with them.

Electoral politics follows social change, not vice versa. And “changing society,” rather than “targeting a narrow slice of swing voters,” requires deep and ongoing organizing – the sort of organizing that creates movements, not campaigns.

When you take a moment to step back and view history as the endless stream of struggle that it is, it is not hard to see why it is dumb to dedicate resources to making Maga Republicans more visible and viable within their own party. You are promoting an awful ideology in hopes of winning votes – but in the long run, politics is a battle of ideology. The votes follow the ideology.

The consultants are fighting on the wrong battleground, and no matter how many polls they have, they are not clever enough to predict the chaotic long-run effects of fueling a movement that is the opposite of the movement we should be trying to build.

Part of wisdom is understanding your limitations. Neither you nor I nor the Democratic National Committee can predict the future with confidence. What we can do is to fight for justice today. We can do the hard work of organizing today and tomorrow. We can try to push society in the right direction. By changing society itself, we can make the ground more fertile for political candidates who will do the right thing.

The historic figures who have done the most to promote justice did not do it by deviously clever manipulations of voter data. They did it by fighting for stuff that was right. Spending money to try to dupe hapless Republican voters into backing the goofiest fascist is not just stupid; it goes against justice. Tricking people is not part of organizing.

These sophisticated Democratic strategists are pouring poison into the well that we all, sooner or later, will have to drink from.

 

. . .Disgusting.

Are you joking? Politics is a blood sport. Also known as "hardball". It's all about the power baby. Ask Mitch.

[kallend 2,148]

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

Not without the help of the DNC, apparently:

blah blah

You seem to have forgotten that "politics ain't bean-bag." (Finley Peter Dunne, 1895)

[billvon 3,118]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Not without the help of the DNC, apparently:

Sounds like that strategy . . . . worked.  George Santos was elected and is now a national laughingstock.  The GOP may force him to resign to save themselves the humiliation, and a second election (where the democratic candidate can point to Santos as the GOP's best option last time) will be easier for democrats to win.

The democrats turned this midterm election from a traditional (and expected) utter defeat to one where they held the Senate, and kept the House balanced enough that the republicans can't even elect a speaker with the slim majority they have.  That's a win for them.  And if it means that the right wing extremists can't force their agenda on America, it's a win for the country as well.

[Coreece 190]

Damn, I don't even know who you guys are anymore.

You're effectively settling for a political poker game of Razz whereby the worst possible selection of candidates not only wins, but is encouraged to normalize the fringes of radical ideology.  It takes the lesser of two evils to the next level, beyond Idiocracy.

At that point you might as well just vote for the opposing POS candidate, that way when such a system goes to shit - and it will - you could at least blame the other party, and everyone wins!

 

[wmw999 2,588]

24 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Damn, I don't even know who you guys are anymore.

You're effectively settling for a political poker game of Razz whereby the worst possible selection of candidates not only wins, but is encouraged to normalize the fringes of radical ideology.  It takes the lesser of two evils to the next level, beyond Idiocracy.

At that point you might as well just vote for the opposing POS candidate, that way when such a system goes to shit - and it will - you could at least blame the other party, and everyone wins!

 

Well, on the national level, what choice do we have? On the state level, it depends in larger part on where you live, because we can more effectively work for candidates that we support. And on the local level, it can really matter. But right now, in the Congress, it's all about grabbing popcorn I'm afraid. And that makes me afraid sometimes.

Wendy P.

[gowlerk 2,275]

30 minutes ago, Coreece said:

You're effectively settling for a political poker game of Razz whereby the worst possible selection of candidates not only wins, but is encouraged to normalize the fringes of radical ideology.  It takes the lesser of two evils to the next level, beyond Idiocracy.

The right gave you Trump. Because somehow he was seen as better than Clinton. You know the old saying, in a democracy the people get the government they deserve.

[jakee 1,595]

Man, I know you are really fuckin’ stretching to make everything the Democrat’s fault but money only goes so far. Ultimately the Republicans heard the whack jobs’ messages and decided they should represent the party. 
 

While the article does make a good case for it to be a bad strategy in the long run, there’s also the chance that a bump in extreme candidates being chosen in primaries and then losing will make the GOP less likely to support extremists in future.

[billvon 3,118]

35 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Damn, I don't even know who you guys are anymore.

You're effectively settling for a political poker game of Razz whereby the worst possible selection of candidates not only wins

?? It's a strategy to ensure the worst possible candidates LOSE.

Democrats tried simply floating the best candidates they had.  They got Trump, and MTG, and Boebert.  So that didn't work.  This did.   And both sides may learn from it. 

Take an example.  Imagine you are a hiring manager, and your CEO keeps telling you to hire his old drinking buddies.  For a while you resist and hire the best candidates you can find.  Finally the CEO explains to you that any one his drinking buddies is better than the eggheads you are hiring, and hints that you could lose your job unless you hire them.

So finally you decide to hire the worst of his drinking buddies, one of the ones he touted.  He is hired and is an unmitigated disaster - and is fired after six months.  CEO gives you a semi-apology and says he won't interfere with your decisions any more,

Is that a good or a bad outcome?

[headoverheels 334]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

Democrats tried simply floating the best candidates they had.  They got Trump, and MTG, and Boebert.  So that didn't work.  This did.   And both sides may learn from it. 

MTG won her 2020 primary against a much better candidate (by pretty much any standard or lack thereof).   No DNC assistance required, and she had an easy general election win, and re-election.

The strategy can only win in a purple district.  Even leaning R or D districts are not likely to change.   Look at how terrible of a candidate Walker was for GA Senator, and he still nearly won.

[Coreece 190]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

?? It's a strategy to ensure the worst possible candidates LOSE.

Maybe in the short-term, if they're lucky.   Tho there is the possibility of the republicans adopting a similar strategy, so the Dems can pick the Reps candidate and vice versa.  Then when that shit show implodes, it might build some momentum for a 3rd party - so that's a good thing, I suppose.

 

7 hours ago, billvon said:

Democrats tried simply floating the best candidates they had.  They got Trump, and MTG, and Boebert.  So that didn't work.  This did.   And both sides may learn from it. 

Take an example.  Imagine you are a hiring manager, and your CEO keeps telling you to hire his old drinking buddies.  For a while you resist and hire the best candidates you can find.  Finally the CEO explains to you that any one his drinking buddies is better than the eggheads you are hiring, and hints that you could lose your job unless you hire them.

So finally you decide to hire the worst of his drinking buddies, one of the ones he touted.  He is hired and is an unmitigated disaster - and is fired after six months.  CEO gives you a semi-apology and says he won't interfere with your decisions any more,

Is that a good or a bad outcome?

It's good in the sense that they're digging themselves out of a hole, if they're lucky.  A hole they really didn't need to be in to begin with.  Depending on the companies level of grace, they could just let them move forward having learned from the experience, or they could say that this guy was a disaster and cost them 6-months of productivity all because of a nepotistic CEO and invertebrate hiring manager. 

 

[billvon 3,118]

44 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Maybe in the short-term, if they're lucky.   Tho there is the possibility of the republicans adopting a similar strategy

?? They've already done that.  None other than Rush Limbaugh has publicly called for support of democratic candidates he thought were weak, to try to ensure that republicans would win.

Quote

 A hole they really didn't need to be in to begin with. 

Absolutely true.  But the US was in a Donald Trump-sized hole - one so deep that we almost lost our government to an insurrection.  Bravo to the people trying to dig us out of that.

[jakee 1,595]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Maybe in the short-term, if they're lucky.   Tho there is the possibility of the republicans adopting a similar strategy, so the Dems can pick the Reps candidate and vice versa.  

They can’t actually pick the candidates. The dems could support all the batshit crazy candidates they want but if the R base wasn’t willing to vote for batshit crazy candidates it wouldn’t have a chance of working. 
 

Again, take Gaetz, Boebert, Hawley, Walker, Lake etc… this is what the Rs have chosen all on their own. It’s possible that the Dem strategy has given then a little less power to play with.

[kallend 2,148]

11 hours ago, headoverheels said:

MTG won her 2020 primary against a much better candidate (by pretty much any standard or lack thereof).   No DNC assistance required, and she had an easy general election win, and re-election.

The strategy can only win in a purple district.  Even leaning R or D districts are not likely to change.   Look at how terrible of a candidate Walker was for GA Senator, and he still nearly won.

But Walker isn't in the "batshit crazy" category like MTG or Gaetz, or a pathological liar like Santos.  He is just a guy who's suffered too many blows to the head.

[Coreece 190]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

They can’t actually pick the candidates. The dems could support all the batshit crazy candidates they want but if the R base wasn’t willing to vote for batshit crazy candidates it wouldn’t have a chance of working. 

That's more of an argument for why this is a bad idea - by trying to use the same tactics that go us into this mess to get us out.  And if we go back to the comparison of this being like a political poker game, even degenerate gamblers would consider it a form of cheating.

All I'm really saying is that I don't see this as a viable long-term strategy.  If it's just a one-off thing, then whatever, let's move forward.

[Coreece 190]

7 hours ago, jakee said:

They can’t actually pick the candidates. The dems could support all the batshit crazy candidates they want but if the R base wasn’t willing to vote for batshit crazy candidates it wouldn’t have a chance of working. 

Kind of sounds like entrapment.  And if the Reps could do it all on their own, then it would seem like a gross misuse of democrat donations.  Also, the hard part is getting their voice out there, so don't underestimate the power of advertising. And once they gain traction people tend to base their decision around a single issue whether it's for something they agree with or against something they don't.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Coreece

[billvon 3,118]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

That's more of an argument for why this is a bad idea - by trying to use the same tactics that go us into this mess to get us out.   And if we go back to the comparison of this being like a political poker game, even degenerate gamblers would consider it a form of cheating.

OK let's use the poker game analogy.  Let's say player A has a suspicion that player B has a terrible hand.  So he starts saying "you know I think you got a great hand and I got nothin'.  I'm afraid of that hand.   Don't play it!"

Is that cheating?  Because from the little poker I've played, that's actually what the game is ABOUT.

Quote

All I'm really saying is that I don't see this as a viable long-term strategy.  If it's just a one-off thing, then whatever, let's move forward.

Great! I agree.  And there's a super easy way to move forward.  If republicans start promoting and running non-insane candidates, the strategy doesn't work, and it ends.