Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I can live with crackpot.
Nihilist could be argued, but nihilists tend to pick battles they can win, as they're endlessly running pure rational models in their heads.
Opportunist could also fit, but again, opportunists pick opportunities, not hopeless crusades. And were he that, he'd have been on TV rather than sitting in the shadows crafting his John Yoo memo for the overthrow of an election.
Crackpot works because he who crafts the frivolous in the hopes of justifying and manifesting the impossible is engaged in crackpottery. It's one thing to pull a Dershowitz and defend the seemingly indefensible so well you wind up defying terrible odds. It's very much another to construct a Rube Goldberg theory to set in motion a tin pot coup administered by a Keystone Kops brigade of nitwits, drunks (Rudy), and cult adherents. One cannot view the crowd of perverts, miscreants, and mental patients comprising Team Flip the Election and say, "Yeah, I've got your brief." That's a conscious decision to jump on the crackpot train.
|
I would not try to lump the whole crowd together under a single adjective. Some of them are crackpots.
But Eastman is not a crackpot. He has spouted reactionary views for decades, and has managed to make a decent living and gain some status while doing it. And what he did here was not quite so loopy, in the sense that it might have worked.
Quote:
|
(I think the GA case is a fucked mess. The shotgun-where-a-rifle-is-needed strategy is dumb. And the challenges she'll have to overcome are huge. If... if... indeed she actually ever really planned to try the case, which doesn't appear certain.)
|
Yeah, I'm not sure why you'd say that. She has some pretty damning facts, including particularly the recording of Trump and Meadows telling Raffensberger to find the votes to make Trump the winner, after the election had been certified. Why isn't that criminal?
