What Am I

God, I hope not. I find the heavy-handed Christian stuff so obnoxious and threatening. It's as if it stems from an innate religious impulse to cram down "the good word" by force. Like a slightly different flavor of the same bizarre compulsion in Islamism.

Holy shit, what an Uno reverse card this would be. Let's hope for all our sakes that if Trump wins, there's not a crazy Christian Theocracy coup being planned behind his back. I'm personally more scared of those types than I am of Trump.

Not much stands out in terms of particularly new and interesting information. There were a few tidbits here and there, such as a backstory as to how/why he hired John Bolton.

Sounds like Kyle was hoping for an adversarial interview as opposed to an entertaining podcast.

Pretty honest response. I'm sure I'd go through a similar mental quandary if I had such a button, and I'd likely end up making the choice that I perceive to be simultaneously the most advantageous for myself as well as for the greater good.

Well sure, I mentioned in my first post that the current precedent of election denialism and attempted overturning was set by Trump. But you're not saying you hope the left successfully steals the election in the event that he wins, are you? Edit: Actually, upon rereading your post, I don't think that's what you were saying. I probably misinterpreted that last sentence. I think you meant that centrists deserve the hell they'd live in with a Trump presidency. My apologies.

Something I haven't seen brought up is the possibility of the left attempting a serious breach of democratic norms in the event of Kamala losing. It'd almost be hard to blame them after the January 6th stuff, since a new precedent has been set. It'd be brazenly hypocritical of them, sure, but I do wonder what we might end up seeing once we surpass the boiling point of rage and indignation. When emotions run high enough, a lot becomes possible.

lol yeah, and I'm sure her campaign made note of her decreased odds after each appearance as well.

I definitely respect that his plan is level-headed and reasonable, though, and likely an effective form of resistance. I'm sure the same can't be said for all others, who may be planning unhinged shit that's difficult to imagine in the event of a Trump presidency.

Yeah, I agree that a combination of attributes is obviously the ideal scenario. I remember that being so clear to me when I first began paying attention to politics. Unfortunately, each side seems to be inclined to repel the other's ideas, often at their own detriment.

Right lol, good point on them being non-combative. In my mind, that demonstrates an even clearer sign of incompetence on her part in terms of being a poor podcast guest. It could be smart if it avoids her saying some crazy shit. Three hours is quite a long time.

I'm guessing it's due to her campaign realizing she simply isn't capable of having a deep nuanced discussion on those types of podcasts. At least not one that would benefit her electorally. Someone in her camp must have made the call that more podcast appearances would be to their detriment. They're probably worried about her making vocal flubs or getting caught in situations where she's not sure what to say. It seems like an issue that comes along with not knowing how to improvise an appropriate response.

I don't think you're entirely wrong here in terms of keeping those with power accountable, but it sounds like your intention isn't just to imprison Trump and his ilk. It sounds like you want to crush the entire anti-establishment movement, in which Trump is merely an extension of. That starts to get more "iron fisty" in my opinion, and similar to the actions of someone flipping the board when they're not happy with how the game is going. While this is true, it's also the conundrum we find ourselves in. I don't have a good answer for how it should be handled. All I can say is that I don't think imprisoning Trump for the rest of his life, or even at all, will produce the kind of results you're hoping for. Maybe it really is a situation where pragmatism should be used when determining how to mete out justice instead of following the law strictly to the letter. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me this is exactly what the Republican party has done. I believe their support has grown somewhat significantly since 2020. And I guess I would echo MrTruf's question regarding the possibility of Trump winning. It seems to me that'd be an expression of democracy rather than an ending of it. I'm curious how you'd view such an event in the framework of what you're trying to protect. In fact, and not to be cheeky, but the plan you've laid out seems more like an effort to disrupt the democratic process as it is in its current form. I do acknowledge the whole January 6th thing, though. That was definitely some major steps towards a lack of adherence to the democratic rules when figuring in the whole elector plot and everything.

Some of that sounds awfully similar in practice to "stamping them out with an iron fist," lol. I have a feeling those tens of millions (and likely growing) won't look kindly on their way of life becoming criminalized, their leaders being imprisoned, and the existing governmental rules getting modified to ensure any hope they have of attaining power is stripped away in perpetuity. Something tells me they won't just snap out of it and morph into the obedient citizens that you may hope for, but rather they'll continue to exist with an invigorated hatred of the establishment that we've never witnessed in our lifetime. I'm not saying I have a better plan, but this one strikes me as heavy-handed in the extreme and unlikely to succeed when you're talking about so many people. It'd probably work out great for obliterating a group of a few hundred or something like that.

I think you're correct in a sense, but "Trumpism" has grown quite a bit larger than Trump himself. It seems more like we're dealing with a global anti-establishment uprising, which I guess will eventually calm down one way or the other, but I don't think its continued existence will be dependent on Trump's presence.

What a twist lol. Please tell him What Am I says hi.

Sure, but how would they go about doing that aside from civil and honest persuasion? Forced reeducation? Maybe even exterminations? It's difficult to imagine actions such as those producing a better world in the end.

I guess whatever form it may take to realize your vision for the country. With a dialogue, there's at least hope for that vision being shared. But when communications break down, it becomes a battle for control that can even become kinetic. That's my impression of where things may go once people truly stop talking.

But once this door is closed, isn't violence the only remaining option?

Jesus lol, that is not the kind of masculinity the Rogan crowd wants. In their minds, Kamala's endorsement from Dick Cheney just provides further reassurance that they've made the right choice.

I'm pretty confident she would have been on more podcasts if she was capable, but her campaign likely did the calculus and realized it would ultimately hurt them more than help. She may be a personable individual with the effeminate crowd you're describing, but based on what I've seen in her interviews, I really doubt her facade-like demeanor would work on Rogan or anything similar.

If things do end up tipping Trump's way, I'm certainly hopeful about RFK's influence. Even if a couple of the items in his post are goofy and out of place, such as ivermectic and hydroxychloroquine, I do very much appreciate the others. His promotion of an enthusiasm for fortifying your own health is so important, because it's that enthusiasm that allows an individual's efforts to take on a life of their own. The act of making healthy choices becomes gamified as one sees themselves continuously improve, and the natural tendency is to keep pushing and see how far it can go. Perhaps if we're lucky, more than half of the US population will cease being overweight and prediabetic.

Right, I saw your latest blog post, and I can't pretend it's not accurate that electing someone outside of the establishment is a pretty large risk in itself, due to the potential for massive instability and somewhat unpredictable outcomes. That risk compounds when it involves someone like Trump. We could be in for quite a ride.

There's also a real perception growing that the last couple Democratic candidates (Biden and Kamala) are just vessels for the entrenched US bureaucracy's will, without any capacity or even desire to display a vision of their own. I'm sure that's playing a part in their lessening popularity since that's kind of the opposite of the qualities someone would expect in a leader.