Alt Dicta

@iluvnumbers @annbauerwriter I agree! And it’s why you can’t simply dismiss people based on the fact that billionaires may support the same views!

@AltDicta @annbauerwriter It’s not a perfect world. We live with a two-party system. You pick the one that best resemble your political views.

I don't get all the crowing about 200,000 people at the No Kings rally in St. Paul. Bruce Springsteen played a free concert. Only 200,000 people showed up. That actually kind of surprises me.

@annbauerwriter My questions to you, as I thought was obvious, were rhetorical. I don’t think your political views are inherently unserious simply because billionaires fund and support them. I was simply applying your argument against No Kings to views you may share to show it is illogical.

@AltDicta I don't have time to refute your incredibly faulty arguments one by one. I also oppose child rape. I oppose cannibalism. I oppose animal abuse. So do many billionaires. It doesn't mean I'm aligned with them on general policy or political persuasion.

@EBryceLee @annbauerwriter No, I think some billionaires may support it out of cynical views, sure. My point is you can’t invalidate the views of people on an issue simply because billionaires fund or support that same view, as Ann did in the post I’m responding to.

Do you think that the No Kings protests are *not* serving the interests of cynical billionaires who themselves are opposed to trump? The answer is that, once you recognize that the world is run be self-interested, cynical megalomaniacs, you can still choose to support whichever of them is most likely to effect the policies you happen to prefer.

@annbauerwriter I’m defining political view as support or opposition on particular issues.

@AltDicta if you support a "political view" - as defined by our current parties - you're joining a club, not making decisions about issues And that is what most people do

@annbauerwriter Exactly my point. I don’t think the support of billionaires for views you share invalidate those views as you apparently think the support of billionaires does for No Kings.

@annbauerwriter If you oppose socialist policies (as your post implies), then certainly you are taking the same position as a great many, if not most, billionaires. Does your expression of anti-socialist beliefs on social media inherently lack seriousness? I could go on and on.

@annbauerwriter Springsteen supports No Kings, but Musk and Trump oppose it. Are you just a pawn for billionaires Musk and Trump? Do your posts inherently lack serious political analysis and beliefs simply because Musk, Trump, Thiel, whoever might also support the same positions?

@annbauerwriter Billionaires are on all sides of the issues, so it’s not quite that simple. May I suggest that the content of the policies supported or opposed matters?

@AltDicta If the funders of No Kings are billionaires, it's because they have an interest in pushing this agenda. Occam's razor.

@rockytfs @annbauerwriter I referenced “the other side” because I know she agrees with positions on the other side (which billionaires also famously support), but I didn’t call it “her side” because I know she has an independent streak and can’t be pinned down so neatly. My critical thinking is fine.

@AltDicta @annbauerwriter So many words, so little said. When one speaks of “the other side”, it’s clearly implying one has a side. Pretending you didn’t imply that, shows a lack of critical thinking skills. Uber wealthy people are supporting both Reps and Dems, Antifa, “No Kings”, MAGA. Not in doubt.

@annbauerwriter @Jerwi57 You can reasonably accuse Bernie of lots of things—of being unrealistic, of being a hypocrite, of whatever—but you can’t reasonably accuse him of supporting billionaire-friendly policies or attracting supporters who favor billionaire friendly policies.

@Jerwi57 @AltDicta Who refused his election workers minimum wage while he was chauffeured around America in an Escalade? desmoinesregister.com/story/news/ele…

@annbauerwriter It’s also hilarious to try to spin No Kings into a billionaire-supportive thing when *Bernie Sanders* was a headline speaker.

@annbauerwriter It’s lazy to attribute one side’s activism nothing but manipulation by billionaires and wanting to see Springsteen play a song or two.

@annbauerwriter Funding is also such a red herring for No Kings. You need a stage, some audio equipment, a permit, and security. It does not require billionaire benefactors to produce. It’s a political rally, not the Super Bowl halftime show or a presidential campaign.

@AltDicta If it's true that oligarchs are funding No Kings (and if you count Springsteen himself, who is worth $1.2 billion, it certainly is), you have hordes of taxpayers struggling to make ends meet marching in support of policies that benefit billionaires. That doesn't sound serious.

@annbauerwriter You can ridicule this type of thing, but it’s a big mistake to say it’s not about serious political analysis and beliefs to people.

Put aside Bruce fans, of which there are many (confoundingly, at least to me). It was an EVENT - Bernie Sanders, Jane Fonda. It was a celebrity thing and people love that. They go to take photos they can post. Has nothing to do with serious political analysis and beliefs.

@Trillest115 @CaseyMattox_ Eric frequently misrepresents or oversimplifies question presented and decisions in his tweets. x.com/altdicta/statu…

@CaseyMattox_ Am I crazy or is Eric straight up wrong about the question presented? Does it not say mandatory LWOP for felony-murder?

Merits of the decision aside, I do like it generally when state courts take their own state constitutions seriously and don't just treat them as copies of the federal constitution. Make your own mistakes so the rest of us can see how that works out.

@baseballcrank (And I generally find him quite compelling)

@baseballcrank I don’t think this was a good exchange for Clement.

That moment when a lawyer arguing before the Court can feel the trap door opening beneath his feet: