One says āX is gonna happen. Accept it.ā The other says āX is highly liable to happen. So what are we going to do when it does? Accept it, or kick it in the nuts?ā
Itās the starry-eyed optimists who assume itās all going to be okay that terrify me, though. Because theyāre the ones who wonāt do anything, because they trust everyone else to be smart and take care of it, and then are too shocked to help when X happens (itās okay to be hurt, devastated, and feel betrayedā¦ especially if you are part of a marginalized community).
I often get accused of pessimism for saying: āWell, whatās our plan when X happens?ā But I donāt see that as pessimism. Iād rather have a million unused plans than be scrambling without one when something we could all see as a high probability, actually occurs.
More fodder for outrage, but hereās the thing. I do not think it will matter even a little bit. There are no unknowns here (or at least will not be once the primaries are over.) The preferences are baked in for the most part and debates are unlikely to change any minds. It will come down to voter turnout, or prevention of same. Get to the polls and help others register, stay registered and get to the polls. Everything else is distraction. Period.
Iām hip, although I donāt actually know any of those peeps online or in 3D life; whereas I often encounter far too many wannabe ābansheesā and Schleprocks who practically seem downright eager to āwatch the world burnā¦ā
I do think that debating Trump does help remind undecided voters that Trump is incredibly incompetent. He looked really bad with each debate vs. Clinton, and his polling showed it.
He will stand at 40+% no matter what he does at this point. He has proven no amount of graft, criminality or incompetance can impact that. If he bombs a debate he will blame tne moderators, the sponsors or the "deep state " and his acolytes will eat it up. IMHO (and people of good will can certainly disagree on this) any time, money and effort spent on anything other than voter registration and access to polling places, once the primaries are over, is wasted. There may be a small number of truly undecided voters out there, but the population of those being disenfranchised in one or more of the repubs schemes outnumbers that few by at least one order of magnitude if not more.
I agree with everything you just wrote, except that fundamental competence and inspiring non-voters to get out and vote is something the opposing candidate will need to do. A debate serves to drive home the point that there is significant difference between Trump and his opponent. One of the dirtiest (and most effective) tricks in the GOPās electoral playbook is to convince non-voters that thereās no difference between the two parties and to stay home.
Absolutely, inspiring/ exciting nonvoters is vital. They need to be voting for something. And there are lots of āit doesnāt matter, thereās no differenceā types, including some who post here. That is absolutely death. But I think we generally agree.
Definitely. I just see it as one (or two, or three) moments when Trump canāt control the situation to look like he knows what heās doing. Also, itās free advertising for his opponent, who will be outspent during the general campaign.
The good news is that itās easy to call him out on it. If thereās one guy who canāt back down from being called a chicken, itās that guy.
Assuming Gordievsky and his family were successfully smuggled across the Russian border, a second phase of the escape plan would begin, because reaching Finland would not mean that Gordievsky was safe. As Ascot observed: āThe Finns had an agreement with the Russians to turn over to the KGB any fugitives from the Soviet Union that fell into their hands.ā The term āFinlandizationā had come to mean any small state cowed into submission by a much more powerful neighbor, retaining theoretical sovereignty but effectively in thrall. Finland was officially neutral in the Cold War, but the Soviet Union retained many of the conditions of control in the country: Finland could not join NATO, or allow Western troops or weapons systems on its territory; anti-Soviet books and films were banned. The Finns deeply resented the term āFinlandization,ā but it accurately represented the situation of a country forced to look both ways, keen to be seen as Western but unwilling and unable to alienate the Soviet Union. The Finnish cartoonist Kari Suomalainen once described his countryās uncomfortable position as āthe art of bowing to the East without mooning the West.ā
Macintyre, Ben. The Spy and the Traitor (pp. 259-260). Crown/Archetype. Kindle Edition.
OTOH, bad things will happen to countries that seek alliances of convenience.
My belief that my full and earnest investment in a plan B actually causes my plan A to work out is my strongest personal superstition. I havenāt rigorously checked my own data for selection bias, but I feel like anytime I get cocky about plan A it never pans out and if I actually believe in my heart that I will be ok with plan B it allows in llan A. I donāt necessarily believe thatās true for everyone (my wife plans incessantly and is eternally pessimistic, and bad things just find her) but itās a matter of practical magic for me.
