161

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: October 25, 2024, 02:02:29 AM »

Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that the IRS is hanging onto records of the income tax that a fast-food worker paid forty years ago; secondly, there's no good reason (both in the sense of Kamala's political interests and the public interest) to ask them to try to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; thirdly, that's not a thing the IRS would do even if there was a good reason to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; and fourthly, Trump and his supporters would immediately label any evidence the IRS produced as fabricated, so what would even be the point? Nobody who isn't already a ride-or-die Trump fan doubts that Kamala worked at McDonald's when she was younger, because it's entirely believable and would be an utterly pointless thing to lie about.

Wow, what a convent slew of semi-plausible excuses.

“IRS doesn’t have it”
“If they do have it, it doesn’t matter”
“If it does matter, they won’t release it”
“If they do release it, then it’s fabricated”
“If it isn’t fabricated, then it’s not relevant”

It reminds me of the narcissist’s prayer. Which I guess is fitting for Kamala.

What are you even talking about? I explained that there were several reasons that the IRS can't "verify" whether or not Kamala worked at McDonald's, and also correctly pointed out that even if they could offer any evidence, Trump supporters would immediately label it fake. The main idea behind the narcissist's prayer is that the various excuses offered are contradictory, and therefore indicate the speaker's insincerity. In this case, however, the "excuses," as you call them, are all true and all apply at the same time.

No, the fact that people care about whether or not the subject is worth caring about is not automatically evidence that they care about the subject itself. Those are two different things. To put it another way, if I made a thread saying that Trump wears pink underwear, and you responded by asking who even cares, that would not in and of itself be evidence that you cared about whether or not Trump wears pink underwear.

If everyone chimed in to talk about how much they didn't care about a topic in every thread, then all threads would constantly be filled with nonsensical posts of people informing everyone how very much they do not care. I think you can see why this would get out of hand rapidly.

As I already pointed out, this thread is filled with posts that no one cared about and did not respond to (because they do not care!) However, they immensely care about Harris' work history. Lots of regulars came to the thread, only to insist that they do not care in the slightest... while making long posts about how the evidence could exist but doesn't matter. It really makes me think.

But that's not what anyone is saying. It's not caring about whether or not Kamala worked at McDonald's, it's caring about the fact that people are trying to turn this into a big controversy and demanding that Kamala somehow "prove" what any normal person would accept at face value. You say that you don't believe anything without first seeing evidence of it, but that's simply not true. Every single person who lives in a society accepts without question plausible things they're told on a daily basis without demanding evidence of it first. If someone told you they went to Vegas last week on vacation, you'd believe them. If someone told you that they were having a bad day, you'd believe them. And when Kamala says that as a college student, she worked at McDonald's, normal people believe her, because it's entirely plausible and not the kind of thing that anyone could reasonably be expected to make up. Again, what if Trump wears pink underwear? You can care deeply about the fact that people are trying to make a big deal about whether or not Trump wears pink underwear without caring about whether or not Trump wears pink underwear.

Thank you for reminding me about responding to you about the popularity of Democratic and Republican positions. I was distracted by this nonsensical controversy.

162

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: October 24, 2024, 06:34:55 PM »

No, the fact that people care about whether or not the subject is worth caring about is not automatically evidence that they care about the subject itself. Those are two different things. To put it another way, if I made a thread saying that Trump wears pink underwear, and you responded by asking who even cares, that would not in and of itself be evidence that you cared about whether or not Trump wears pink underwear.

163

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: October 24, 2024, 03:37:12 AM »

Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that the IRS is hanging onto records of the income tax that a fast-food worker paid forty years ago; secondly, there's no good reason (both in the sense of Kamala's political interests and the public interest) to ask them to try to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; thirdly, that's not a thing the IRS would do even if there was a good reason to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; and fourthly, Trump and his supporters would immediately label any evidence the IRS produced as fabricated, so what would even be the point? Nobody who isn't already a ride-or-die Trump fan doubts that Kamala worked at McDonald's when she was younger, because it's entirely believable and would be an utterly pointless thing to lie about.

164

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: October 23, 2024, 09:38:25 PM »

The manager has been working there for forty years? I seriously doubt that, and even if it were true, how could they be reasonably expected to remember one of the undoubtedly hundreds of employees they've had over the years?

165

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: October 21, 2024, 08:58:30 PM »

Joker was embraced by chuds immediately upon its release, leading to articles like this being written just a few weeks later. If Hollywood had been as worried by the movie's reception by the "wrong" people as you say, they had plenty of warning and plenty of time to change course before the Oscars. You might actually be right about the budget being fudged, as, like I said, I can't imagine how this movie with its whopping two locations cost triple what the first one did, but even if we suppose that the studio didn't lose money with this, deliberately trying to "self-destruct" a billion-dollar franchise out of spite is a weird step for a group of Hollywood producers, as opposed to one frustrated auteur.

I'm reminded of a dream I had some months ago where the MCU ended abruptly with an ugly, poorly-animated CGI short where a grotesque, giant Trump appeared on a beach and set off a huge explosion, destroying the world and killing everyone. This short was extremely controversial and was interpreted as being a spiteful take-that statement to the world at large because of the increasing likelihood of Trump being reelected president. It was extremely funny and I woke up laughing.

166

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: October 21, 2024, 06:42:58 AM »

The politics of the people celebrating Joker may well have played a role in Phillips's decision to make this movie, but to extend that sentiment towards Hollywood as a whole, as if this was meant to somehow appease them, is a big stretch. I'll be the first to argue that the film industry has plenty of agendas and biases that get in the way of the supposed bottom line, but blowing close to two hundred million dollars on turbofucking a billion-dollar franchise, just because they didn't like how a bunch of alt-right types embraced the first movie? That's very far-fetched. Besides, if they regretted making Joker, why would they celebrate the movie months later by nominating it for a bunch of Oscars and letting it win two? It's their awards show, and they can award or snub any movie they like.

167

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: October 19, 2024, 08:27:22 PM »

There's nothing alt-right or inherently politically conservative about this Joker or these movies. If you'll remember, the big controversy before the first one came out was that the character would turn into an incel hero and provoke similar violence - and I do still strongly suspect that the movie made a last-minute swerve and cut a scene of Arthur murdering Sophie to avoid that implication. For a sequel, with Joker being in a relationship with Harley, there'd be no fear of incels claiming him as one of their own, and there'd be nothing all that controversial about just another anti-hero-led crime movie. And if there were a political agenda behind this movie, I doubt that the people responsible would also want to drag Harley, a beloved character whose popularity has exploded in recent years and has become a feminist capeshit icon to her fans, down with Joker with this two-faced, sexist portrayal of her. This is by no means a politically progressive movie.

168

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General

« on: October 19, 2024, 04:09:15 AM »

It's very bad, yes. Much like the first movie, it's very poorly written, the characters are paper-thin, and the themes are explicitly spelled out and then repeated several times to make sure we get it. Phillips squeezes in a number of "artsy" shots in that clearly mean nothing, but he hopes will look impressive and meaningful (to be fair, given his target audience's enthusiasm over the shot of Arthur smiling through the lipstick on the glass, he was probably successful). Ooh, the light seems to be shining on Arthur in this scene! Ooh, Arthur is centered and framed in silhouette in this scene! How avant-garde! Almost all of the movie takes place in either Arkham or a courthouse (how this movie could have possibly cost $190 million, almost triple the budget of the first one, is beyond me), meaning there's very little of the terrific depiction of Gotham that we saw in the first movie. The courtroom scenes in particular drove me nuts because of how little any of it resembles an actual trial. I'm not saying it needed to be strictly accurate, but it feels like the filmmakers did literally zero research into how actual lawyers talk and how actual trials work. Why does Arthur's lawyer think that his journal is somehow "privileged" and exempt from evidence? Why does Arthur's lawyer ask his former neighbor and unrequited love to repeat every humiliating insult Arthur's late mother aimed at him? Why does the judge allow Arthur to dress up in his Joker outfit and bully and intimidate a witness while not even asking questions? There are plenty of very successful legal thrillers that bring a sense of verisimilitude to their courtroom scenes, even if they aren't strictly accurate to the letter of the law or exact courtroom procedure. There's no reason this movie couldn't have done likewise.

This is the worst depiction of Harley (Lee, as this movie calls her) I've ever seen in any adaptation. Lady Gaga is fine in the role, but there's no real grounding to the relationship between her and Arthur, there's no good reason why they bond over music and sing to each other, and given how heavily (and repeatedly) the movie foreshadows it, it's not much of a spoiler to say that her character ends up being, in effect, yet another conspirator against Arthur in his woe-is-me life, one more person who seemingly has nothing better to do with her own life than traumatize and humiliate him to breaking point, because we live in a society. It's regressive, sexist, and unworthy of Harley. As for the songs I just mentioned, while I don't think they're terribly done, they don't really add much to the movie. Musicals work best when they go all out, and this movie is too devoted to its gritty, grounded aesthetic to really let loose during the songs. It raises the obvious question of why Phillips or whomever even wanted this to be a musical. Oh, and it's incredibly obvious to anyone with any knowledge of Gaga's singing talent that she's deliberately holding back during her songs, presumably to avoid making Phoenix look like a lousy singer in comparison. In fact, I'd guess that the worry of not wanting Gaga to outshine Phoenix too much is also why there are only one or two real duets, with the rest of the songs only being sung by one of them to the other.

Of course, the main reason why most of the first movie's fans absolutely hate this one is its hostility, for lack of a better word, to the first movie and its fans. And as someone who's been quite open about their dislike of the first movie and their patronizing opinion of its fans, I have to say...they have a point. Phillips clearly wasn't happy with how most fans of the first movie unironically idolized Arthur and saw him as a hero rather than a cautionary tale, and this movie is how he's chosen to take out his frustration. It's partially how he treats Arthur as a character (Arthur is raped into dropping the Joker persona. I'm not exaggerating. That really is what happens, and there's no more charitable way to read this. Nothing happens to Arthur between being Joker one day and not being Joker the next day but his rape. It has to be the rape that made him stop being Joker, because there was nothing else.) and partially how Lee and the Joker's fanbase are framed as being toxic, illogical, and manipulative, and very clearly a direct representation of the first movie's fanbase. The movie repeats many times that they are pushing Arthur into a role that he doesn't belong to and trying to make a violent and deeply troubled man out to be a hero. (The scene with Zazie Beetz's character is also a clear jab at the weirdos who saw Arthur as an incel hero.) It could not be more obvious that this is how Phillips has interpreted the first movie's fanbase. I get that it's frustrating to make something enormously successful that you feel has been so widely misunderstood. I'm sure it would have been possible for Phillips to express his feelings about that in a sequel. But not like this. This just reeks of contempt.

There is one thing I'll give Phillips credit for with this movie. He took a risk and made the movie he wanted to make rather than take the safe route. It would have been easy to play to the fans and give them what they wanted, like a movie where chad Joker and Harley go on a Bonnie-and-Clyde-style rampage full of black comedy, fanservice, and we-live-in-a-society commentary. A crowd-pleasing sequel (not even necessarily a good one) would have grossed over a billion dollars, probably making more than the first Joker, and boosted Phillips's career. But he chose to sacrifice that opportunity in favor of making something that he clearly believed in instead, and I do have to respect that, even though it obviously didn't pay off.

169

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: October 19, 2024, 03:14:54 AM »

could it be that people don't like her policy?

If that were the case, then I'd question why the Democratic ticket even had a surge in popularity at all when Kamala replaced Biden. Policy doesn't win presidential elections in this country. If it did, then this election wouldn't be as close as it is. Tighter gun control is consistently popular among Americans. So is support for LGBT rights, greater taxation of the wealthy, and abortion rights, all positions that Republicans firmly oppose and have indicated they're going to be pushing even further in the opposite direction once they have the power to do so. The last point, abortion, is especially galling when you remember that Trump is responsible for the extremely unpopular Dobbs decision that overturned Roe in a very direct, straightforward way. Trump put three people on the SC, all of whom joined the majority on Dobbs and made up half of it. It is because Trump was elected and put his nominees on the SC that Roe was overturned. Trump is responsible. That's not my opinion; it's what objectively happened. So Americans don't want what Republicans are offering - and yet they keep voting for them anyway.

170

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: October 18, 2024, 06:01:53 PM »

I'm sure it really is just Trump clawing back the support he might have lost through Kamala's first surge of popularity and their debate. There's nothing that Kamala has said or done lately that could reasonably be assumed to have cost her any significant support. No prominent gaffes or missteps, no outrageous or especially controversial remarks. It feels ridiculous even talking about whether or not Kamala has made any conventional gaffes when Trump's rhetoric and behavior are becoming increasingly more psychotic, threatening, and senile, but the fact is that she really hasn't made any.

171

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: October 15, 2024, 10:30:49 PM »

I don't know how to even begin engaging with that wave of non sequiturs, so I'll just reiterate - the American people will not in meaningful numbers engage in anything that could be reasonably described as a revolution, rebellion, or mass armed resistance to the de jure government. Joe down the street is not going to say goodbye to his wife and kids and leave home so he can fight in the Battle of Washington or whatever. Very few people would make that kind of sacrifice for the sake of their ideals.

172

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: October 14, 2024, 03:38:12 PM »

Of course there's no way to prove this, but I'd be willing to bet that Trump's standing in the polls improving isn't a case of Kamala losing popularity so much as it is Trump gaining popularity - or more precisely, regaining popularity that he's lost. This has happened before - Republicans make noise about abandoning Trump in the wake of a scandal or bad news, he loses support, and eventually the Republicans come crawling back to him. Clearly, Kamala's best chance of winning is to damage Trump close enough to the election that he won't recover his support in time. Less an October surprise than a very early November surprise.

173

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: October 13, 2024, 08:41:13 PM »

So your overall point is "nothing happens until it does"? Let's say I want to send people to death camps, but I don't want to have a hard time with it, so I want to start trying to disarm people first. What would that look like?

You would have a hard time with it regardless, because sending people to death camps is exactly the kind of outrageous "I am evil!" stunt that actually could spark mass resistance, regardless of whether or not people have guns. But like I said, that won't happen, because a modern authoritarian government has nothing to gain from that kind of mustache-twirling stunt.

Rising up against a government and overthrowing it via revolution is called an insurrection. 

The people marching through the Capitol on Jan 6th and calling to hang the politicians risked their freedom for doing what they did. Many of them did go to jail because of it, and would have faced a much harsher punishment if they had actually found a politician to hang. The claim that people are too scared to risk anything anymore is clearly false.

Now you're just quibbling about definitions, as if that's at all my point. Mobbing a building with the encouragement of the president in the belief that he's being unlawfully forced out of office is objectively not the same thing as gun owners rising up in response to government tyranny and setting out to overthrow it. And if we're going to talk about their motivations and sacrifices, then it's also worth pointing out that many of the attackers have since said that they thought Trump had their backs and were astonished when the election went on to be certified and they ended up being prosecuted. They weren't willfully sacrificing anything.

The only reason more guns were not there at the event is because the crowd went through the Trump rally security, which involves going through high-tech weapon scanners for entrance. However, many guns were found in cars outside of the event.

I don't care about why they didn't have guns. That isn't at all relevant to what I'm arguing, which is that in stark contrast to the "we need guns to fight the government" narrative, this attack happened without the use of guns.

There is video of people breaking down the windows of the Capitol building with bats. The characterization that this isn't violent enough is laughable. People were willing to insurrect even without the benefit of guns, which speaks more to their bravery and willingness to insurrect when they believe that the other side has crossed the line.

I never said that it wasn't "violent enough." I said it was done without the use of guns, which it was.

You will recall that at least 13 red states, including Texas, were telling the SCOTUS that the results of the election should not have been accepted with the concerning discrepancies.

Putting the name "Texas" on a lawsuit for legal reasons does not mean that Texas as a whole objected to the election. It was a group of Trump lawyers and Texas AG Ken Paxton who filed the lawsuit Texas v. Pennsylvania, and I'm pretty sure that any other lawsuit you might have in mind developed along similar lines.

In the 2020 election there was growing concern over a civil war. It would have been divided between the red states vs. the blue states. In a civil war the military bases in those areas would go to the parent states, just as what happened during the first civil war. In a civil war the military in Texas will obviously be defending Texas regardless of what federal orders they receive.

This is all thrilling worldbuilding for the alternate-history story you're presumably writing, but here in the real world, the military (outside of the National Guard and Coast Guard) all take their orders from the same central authority. 99.9% of them will continue to obey the conventional chain of command, regardless of whom the president is.

Incorrect. Look any timeline:

https://www.jan-6.com/january-6-timeline

January 6th: Capitol Tunnel + Upper W. Terrace

3:30pm
Fighting resumes at the tunnel.
On the Upper W. Terrace, a large group of officers push rioters back from NW Courtyard.
Crow continues surging at tunnel until 4:17pm.

4:17pm
Police threaten lethal force.
 Trump tweets, “This was a fraudulent election, but..we have to have peace. So go home. We love you; you’re very special...But go home..

4:26pm
Rioters realize Roseanne Boyland is trampled after the one rioter trips over her body while leaving the tunnel.

4:27pm
The mob drags out Officer Miller & beats him with fists and weapons.

Ten minutes after Trump made that announcement the crowd was beating policemen with fists and weapons. The situation clearly wasn't over.

Unless you think that beating up a policeman was somehow going to overturn the election, then you're making an incredibly pedantic nitpick.  We got on this subject because you claimed that Trump calling the attackers off was the reason why the attack didn't succeed. I pointed out that wasn't true because Congress had already been evacuated and so the attackers were just hanging around in an empty building, and your response is to say that, no, the attackers weren't just hanging around in an empty building, they were actually beating up cops. Do you really think this is a good, germane response? Do you really think pointing out this fact changes anything?

174

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: October 12, 2024, 07:28:54 PM »

You seem to conveniently forget your prior rantings about what you guys describe as the scary Jan 6 2020 insurrection.

There was an insurrection against the US Capitol in 2020, and they only stopped because their leader told them to go home.

Obviously, people are willing to participate in insurrection in modern America.

I didn't say that people weren't willing to participate in insurrections or political violence. I'm specifically talking about the idea that gun owners will rise up against the government if it grows too oppressive and overthrow it via revolution. A coup involving a relatively tiny number of people and one specific, strategic act of violence to keep a president they liked in power is not, I imagine, what gun owners have in mind when they talk about how they're a check on the government. In fact, the Capitol attack itself pokes a hole in that mythology because of the limited role that guns played in it. The attackers swarmed the Capitol through sheer numbers (and also through complicit Democratic authorities, according to your contradictory take on it), not through force of arms. Only one person was shot, and it was by the police.

Also, in a real civil war parts of the military would very likely be joining Trump. The insurrectionists wouldn't be on their own.

I never even mentioned Trump, but now that you mention it, if Trump or any other politician called for a civil war, very few people inside or outside of the military would join him. That's the power of de jure authority.

If Trump had given the go ahead instead of telling them to stop, America would be much different today.

Nice try, but this effort at rewriting history to portray Trump as magnanimous and merciful isn't going to work. Trump didn't tell anyone to stop until hours after the Capitol had been breached and the members of Congress had all long since been evacuated. At that point, the attackers - most of whom were already gone - were just hanging around in the empty building. There was nothing that any of them could have done at that time, regardless of what Trump did or didn't say to them.

175

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: October 12, 2024, 03:54:22 AM »

This is certainly a strange opinion to have that runs contrary to recorded history. Do you have a lot of good examples of countries where the population was well armed but ended up widely suppressed by an authoritarian government anyway?

Is your opinion seriously "rebellions against governments never happen"? Seems a bit silly, don't you think? We're barely a decade removed from Arab Spring. Surely you've heard about that one, at least?

I'm talking about America in the current general period of time, not other countries and not other times in history. Short of the government doing something outrageously drastic like marching stormtroopers down the streets or sending people to death camps (which it has no reason to do, as there are far more effective and discreet ways to operate an authoritarian regime), Americans are not going to sacrifice their livelihoods and leave their families so that they can become unpaid freedom fighters and spend the rest of their lives as hunted fugitives. They have too much to live for.

176

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: October 10, 2024, 04:50:24 AM »

You mean except for all the people in the government trying to explicitly ban guns from being owned by the public.

I think I'm interpreting "disarm" and "ban guns" a bit more broadly than you, but regardless, I'll rephrase - I strongly disagree with the notion that an armed population are somehow a check on the federal government or a deterrent to any undesirable activity on their part, and that if the government were planning to pass shitty, unpopular, or blatantly unconstitutional laws, they would first need to disarm the population. That's just something that gun enthusiasts like to tell themselves (and everyone else) so they can imagine that they're actually performing an important civic duty by pursuing their hobby.

This is correct. I have no intention of violent acts upon any individual or government entity. Violence is wrong and bad.

I'm not trying to call you specifically out. I'm just saying that the implied threat of an armed population in this country making trouble for or resisting an oppressive government is ultimately an empty one. Americans will not rise up against their government en masse, with or without their guns. Politicians know this. In fact, I'd say that anyone who has taken the time to actually think about this subject instead of immediately accepting gun enthusiasts' romanticized view of their hobby as the undisputed truth knows this. In light of this fact, I think that conspiracy theories about how gun control laws and policies are secretly intended to make the population compliant and unable to resist in the face of further tyranny fall apart.

177

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 06, 2024, 10:00:50 PM »

What a stupid argument. Slavery was historically seen as perfectly fine. Marrying fourteen-year-old girls was historically seen as perfectly fine. Laws should stand on their own merits, not on whether or not people long ago agreed with them.

178

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Yet Another Gun Law Thread

« on: October 06, 2024, 09:01:31 PM »

I said this in the election thread, but it belongs here:

I'm pretty sure that nobody in the government is trying to "disarm" the public in that sense, because they know that the population is not going to rise up against them en masse, regardless of whether or not they have their rifles. Regardless of what incredibly shitty and unpopular laws are passed, 99.9% of Americans will continue to follow the laws and remain more or less conforming members of society. They're not going to quit their jobs and say goodbye to their families so they can become revolutionaries. It's not going to happen.

I'm not saying you can't rebel; I'm saying you won't rebel. Prove me wrong.

179

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 06, 2024, 08:50:32 PM »

Sex work being decriminalized is far from a radical or extreme concept. It's been very successfully implemented in other countries, and it's objectively an ideal way to all but eradicate every negative effect that prostitution has on society at large - diseases, violence, sexual assault, and the like. There's no good reason to keep it illegal.

180

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 28, 2024, 04:01:25 AM »

This is my big issue with Trump. I disagree with his general worldview. But that's OK, that can be the basis for some discussion.
But the big issue is the way he comes to decisions and conclusions about things.
He sees something on TV about Haitians eating cats in Springfield - from one of the networks he watches which constantly reinforce his worldview.
He regurgitates it in the debate, is immediately told that there are no credible reports of that actually happening and just mutters "well, I saw it on TV..."

I think literally the next day he's announcing mass deportations, clearly having made zero effort to actually check anything

Now, clearly the mass immigration in to Springfield has caused issues. It's reasonable to believe that something should be done. But the something should be based on actual facts and an understanding of the situation, not right leaning media outlets feeding you lies which you don't bother to check and then start basing policy on even after being told that they were lies.

For someone who goes on about "fake news" all the time, he sure does like to lap up all the lies which feed in to his worldview. Which is depressingly common these days of course, but I don't think anyone who does that should be in any position of power. Make policy based on data and facts, not "stuff you saw on TV". Sigh.

Do you really think that Trump sincerely believes that Haitian migrants are running amok and eating pets in Springfield? I certainly don't. This is a strategic move on his part. He's seen success with making racist or racially-charged attacks in the past, and he's trying to replicate that.