What I have picked up from reading the snippets.
Seattle is a one man band defending his rights to support a Trump approach to the Economy rather than a Biden approach.
I don't think at any point he has said he supports him as a man/human or President particularly.
Certainly not in a MAGA way.
It is not easy to support a position that everyone else is very hostile towards and this is a very long thread.
The other day, I said this of Trek:
To me, that "guy" is more like that speck of whatever that you can never seem to wipe from your glasses or screen. AI surpassed that type ages ago, and that's not really hyperbole. But sometimes you just scratch an itch even when you know it's not necessarily bettering the situation.
If one considers that in the context of
other things I've said or evinced--
I find the concept of (subjective) "rights" inherently problematic and bogus, frankly (my rationale stems largely from either Marx's or Engels's contention that rights are necessarily something accorded "from above", i.e., authority), and I've got views on violence and killing people that aren't shared by many people, to put it mildly
--one might reasonably conjecture, "dude sounds like a fucking psychopath." And, in fairness, I've got some sociopathic--or antisocial, at the very least--attributes. But I don't think I'm a psychopath, and I don't think anyone else really does either (it's been discussed--extensively). Moreover, if you remove language from the equation, sociopathic qualities largely diminish.
My point there is that definitive pronouncements or judgements about people are difficult to make, generally, let alone making such about some rando on the internets. There are plenty of people I like, but as far as most people--especially Americans? I really struggle to see the humanity or animality in them. I can present a not entirely unreasonable argument that most people are not, in fact,
lifeforms at all, but I digress...
Trek is an idiot and largely a waste of time/space/resources. Seattle has a well documented history of bigotry here--he has made a lot of overtly racist, coded racist (as in, obvious to American readers; perhaps less so to non-American readers), misogynistic and even classist (re: homeless people, poor people, addicts, et al) remarks over the years. He's also frequently dishonest--lot's of straw men, goal post shifting, etc. He's also not stupid. At least, I don't
think he is. When he posts bigoted bullshit, half the time I'm not entirely convinced that
he even believes what he's saying. But I don't know. That could just be me trying to be "generous" or inhabiting uncertainty.
But the whole notion of some sort of "fiscal conservativism"/right-wing/"It's the economy, stupid"-ism that is largely
free of bigotry and intolerance is a myth. I'll entertain the idea
hypothetically, but I see no evidence for such in the real world. The bigotry both
stem and
follows from the allegedly "pure" economic ideas and ideals. Of course, a person can have a more "conservative" perspective on certain matters, but that's hardly the same thing. My "evidence" for this contention: Name one single conservative presently living, or within the 20th/21st century who does or did not have a "problematic" background--by that, I mean a personal history of bigotry
or very strong ties to overtly bigoted persons or organizations.
