What's the difference between encouraging someone and egging him on?

I'm trying to read "Scoop: How Trump's team egged him on during CNN town hall" by Mike Allen (Axios).

The "scoop" is this:

Backstage during the first commercial break, Axios has learned, Trump adviser Jason Miller — as if psyching up a boxer in his corner or egging on a bully — showed Trump moments-old tweets from Democrats blasting CNN and saying Trump was winning.

If it was political, why was it so politically obtuse?

It looks increasingly like the FBI raid was to find mishandled classified documents and not some other DOJ investigation which was my first thought. Mishandling documents doesn’t seem like raid material. It does however seem like excellent campaign material for Trump.

— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) August 9, 2022

ADDED: Yang just posted that, and I can see the tweeters who are jumping right in to push back. These are the least subtle contributors to the national discourse, and they are getting way out in front of those  who might offer a sound, sophisticated, principled defense of what the FBI has done. 

I'm seeing:

Jesus pal do you ever shut up?/Yeah, fck National security/It’s raid worthy. You Quisling.

And: 

 

But her emails pic.twitter.com/tBQ1FrYMze

— GMErican Dream 🏴‍☠️💙💛🧢 (@moonsoon69420) August 9, 2022

"It feels like Democrats owe their people an apology for being bad at their jobs..." — writes Andrew Yang, taking for granted that Democrats have the "job" of doing the things they have not done.

It feels like Democrats owe their people an apology for being bad at their jobs - they had a long time to codify Roe v. Wade, defend a balanced court, get RBG to step down, etc. Instead they got played and trounced. “Help undo our failures!” is not a compelling rallying cry.

— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) June 24, 2022

A key I use to understanding puzzles like this is: People do what they want to do. What have they done? Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.

So Yang is only half way there. Apologies are not enough. They would necessarily be premised on an assurance that Democrats really did mean to do what they said they wanted. It's just as bad as a plea for votes to "undo our failures." If you use my key, these were not failures. These were achievements — achievements of ends that were kept hidden.

***

A reading from the book of Matthew:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

"Boys and men across all regions and ethnic groups have been failing, both absolutely and relatively, for years. This is catastrophic for our country...."

"Boys are more than twice as likely as girls to be diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder... are five times as likely to spend time in juvenile detention; and are less likely to finish high school.... Men now make up only 40.5 percent of college students.... Median wages for men have declined since 1990 in real terms. Roughly one-third of men are either unemployed or out of the workforce. More U.S. men ages 18 to 34 are now living with their parents than with romantic partners.... On a cultural level, we must stop defining masculinity as necessarily toxic and start promoting positive masculinity. Strong, healthy, fulfilled men are more likely to treat women well.... Here’s the simple truth I’ve heard from many men: We need to be needed. We imagine ourselves as builders, soldiers, workers, brothers — part of something bigger than ourselves. We deal with idleness terribly. 'A man … with no means of filling up time,” George Orwell wrote, is “as miserable out of work as a dog on the chain.'"

Andrew Yang takes up the cause of men in "The data are clear: The boys are not all right" (WaPo).

Let me single out the line "Strong, healthy, fulfilled men are more likely to treat women well." I've made approximately that argument myself on occasion... and gotten into some of the worst arguments of my life. I'll check the comments now because I'm sure the most liked comment will be something that shows why this seemingly moderate position can enrage those focused on women. Yes, here, from one "Jane Guy":

Guess what? If men started doing their share of housework, child care, and the emotional labor of a family (which every study shows they do not), they would feel needed. They ARE needed, in fact, just not in the way you say they want to be. Our culture needs to stop defining "masculinity" as being "builders, workers, soldiers, brothers" and start defining it as being "productive members of society and equal participants in family life."

Andrew Yang announces he's now officially an independent and not a Democrat.

I know he's out and about pushing a new book that I can't believe anyone cares about reading, so the cynical part of me thinks he had to come up with something of interest. I'm still taking the bait. Let's see if he says anything useful on the subject of why he wants the only political affiliation I myself could put up with. Excerpt:

[O]ur system is stuck. It is stuck in part because polarization is getting worse than ever....  The key reform that is necessary to help unlock our system is a combination of Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting, which will give voters more genuine choice and our system more dynamism. It will also prevent the spoiler effect that so many Democrats are concerned about, which is a byproduct of a two party system with a binary contest and simple plurality voting.... I’m not very ideological. I’m practical. Making partisan arguments – particularly expressing what I often see as performative sentiment – is sometimes uncomfortable for me....

"It is disingenuous and dangerous to play on the very real and legitimate fears of bigotry and voter disenfranchisement by pretending it’s present where it’s not."

Said New York public advocate, Jumaane Williams, quoted in the new Michelle Goldberg column about the New York mayoral election. 

The column has a distracting title — "Only the Women Can Save Us Now"— but the real point is that the candidate Eric Adams may be laying the groundwork for arguing that the election was rigged against him, that is, against the black man. 

Under the new ranked voting system, Adams could win the most first-place votes and still lose the election. He needs a majority of first-place votes to win without counting the second- and third-place votes, and he's likely to win a plurality but not a majority. So the second- and third-place votes will probably determine the outcome, and if they don't lead to his winning, he'll challenge the outcome and — he's already indicated — he'll portray it as a manifestation of structural racism.

It's not just that the ranked system is confusing, it's that Andrew Yang started campaigning with Kathryn Garcia and urging his supporters to put her in second place on their ballots. That led Adams to say, "For them to come together like they are doing in the last three days, they’re saying we can’t trust a person of color to be the mayor of the City of New York."

By "person of color," he means black. Yang is a "person of color," Goldberg points out. 

Anyway, a new IPSOS poll came out today. Adams leads not just in the first-place position, but also in the second- and third-place positions. So it looks as though he'll fail to get the majority, but will still win. He's the law-and-order candidate, by the way.

"It was Yang’s answers on homelessness and mental health at the final debate that finally settled it for me."

"Every other candidate spoke of homelessness as a disaster for the homeless. Yang discussed it as a quality of life problem for everyone else. 'Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else have rights?' he asked. 'We do: the people and families of the city.' For Yang, I suspect, a successful mayoralty would mean restoring Michael Bloomberg’s New York, an extremely safe, pleasant place for tourists and well-off families like mine, but one where many poorer people were financially squeezed and strictly policed. Even if Yang could, as a political novice, stand up to the N.Y.P.D., he’d have little reason to, since his remit would be safety at almost any cost."  

Writes Michelle Goldberg in "Eric Adams Is Awful. I’m Putting Him on My Ballot" (NYT).

The passage I've quoted gets very strong pushback in the comments at the NYT. I'll just quote one:

The big piece of evidence Michelle Goldberg uses against Yang is an answer to the homeless crisis that I happen to agree with, and I'm a liberal Democrat. Of course, the homeless need to have workable options of where to go. But progressives are just wrong to defend the rights of the "unhoused" against anybody who would dare challenge their apparent belief that they can set up camp on any square of sidewalk that they declare to be their own. I can't be the only non-conservative person in America who would like to stop the trashing of our public spaces. I mean, is that really the worst you can say about Andrew Yang? Seriously?

"I seem to be the only person who recalls that ranked choice was on the ballot at one point, and I voted against it. I am really opposed to this idea."

"I’m going to vote for one person in each office.... Truthfully, in my lifetime, I’ve only liked two mayors: I liked Lindsay, and I liked Dinkins. Even Dinkins was far away. Lindsay, no one even knows — some kid asked me this and then she looked up Lindsay. She said, 'How could you have liked him? He’s a Republican.' Today, he’d practically be a socialist. To me, Andrew Yang is a kind of a Trump figure. I’m not saying he’s bad in that way, morally bad. But it’s ridiculous: The reason he was leading in the polls is because everyone knew who he was. The reason everyone knew who he was is that he ran for president. To me, Andrew Yang — he’s qualified for nothing. He couldn’t be the president of my condo board. I assure you, he could not deal with this. If New York City were a high-school football team, he could be the cheerleader — not a college football team but a high-school football team. In a small town." 

Said Fran Lebowitz, quoted in "A Ranked Choice Cheat Sheet/We asked New Yorkers about their ranked-choice-voting strategies" (NY Magazine).

Notice how she avoided the complicated question of how to use ranked-choice voting strategically. Her plan is to just pretend there is no ranked-choice and vote for one. That might actually be the best strategy, though, and I don't just mean to avoid having to think about it. It might actually be the best strategy if you think it through at a high level of math and psychology. But asking a lot of notable New Yorkers is NOT a way to get good answers about the strategy, because there's strategy to talking about strategy. If you reveal a smart strategy, you'll cause other strategists to devise counter-strategies. Plus, these notable New Yorkers all want to use their space in the magazine to say why they like the candidates they support.

Here, Chelsea Manning offered a little bit about actually ranking strategy:

With ranked-choice voting, you have to think more strategically as a voter than you would with winner-takes-all. You can have an extremely popular candidate such as Andrew Yang — by popular I don’t mean ‘well liked’; I mean ‘has an enormous amount of name recognition’ — and whenever people go down the list, they’ll be like, Oh, okay, I’ll put him at the bottom. But being at the bottom still makes that a vote. So it’s about who you put in and who you keep out. And that’s the logic that I have here.

Yeah, people might not realize that because there are more candidates than ranked positions on the ballot, putting Yang last isn't a way to sort of vote against him. What if he wins by collecting a ridiculous number of 5th-place votes from people who regard him as their least favorite?!

Does Andrew Yang listen to rap music, by the way? What is he vibing to?

i asked new york mayoral candidate andrew yang what his favorite jay z song is pic.twitter.com/UV8tQJXta1

— ziwe (@ziwe) May 22, 2021

Via "Ziwe Baits Andrew Yang Into an Interview" (NY Magazine).

"I genuinely do love you and your community. You’re so human and beautiful. You make New York City special."

"I have no idea how we ever lose to the Republicans given that you all are frankly in, like, leadership roles all over the Democratic Party. We have, like, this incredible secret weapon. It’s not even secret. It’s like, we should win everything because we have you all." 

Said Andrew Yang, referring to the gay community and gunning for the endorsement of that Stonewall Democratic Club of New York City. And they hated it! 

I'm reading "Andrew Yang, Looking for Endorsement, Offends Gay Democratic Club/Participants described Mr. Yang’s remarks as offensive, saying that even as members of the club wanted to discuss policy issues, he mentioned gay bars" (NYT). 

Now, why did they hate it? I'm guessing they prefer some other candidate, and they ran to the New York Times to send out their negativity against Yang. He's the frontrunner, and he needs to be taken down. He expressed nothing but love and inclusiveness, but apparently, they don't want their special status talked about, they just want a policy-based discussion of the kind he would do with any group, including the least diversityish people. Who knew? 

But, I wonder, if he'd come on like that — talking policy in the same way he would with, say, straight white people — would they have run to the New York Times and claimed to have been offended that he showed no interest in their particular status and fed them generic material he could have served anybody?

I don't know. But I will disapprove of the line "You’re so human." All humans are human. To say "You’re so human" is to imply that the humanness was in question or that other humans are less human. It's a bit like "Black lives matter" in that it states a fact, but the only reason to state it is that there's a background notion — alive in the hearts of other people — that black lives don't matter. You might tell gay people "You're so human" because you mean to say: There are other people out there who think you're subhuman or barely human. 

Here's how members of the group expressed their offense: 

"I wonder how Goldberg would react if the genders were flipped — if the discussion were about 'Andrea Yang,' a 46-year-old woman who's a successful businessperson vs. 'Alexander Ocasio-Cortez,' a 31-year-old man who..."

"... surprised everyone by getting elected to Congress when he was a 20-year-old bartender with an economics degree. I'm going to guess that if a male AOC and a female Yang were running in the same election and taken equally seriously, Goldberg would say that shows that women are systematically disadvantaged."  

Writes my son John (at Facebook), critiquing the NYT op-ed by Michelle Goldberg titled "There Could Never Be a Female Andrew Yang/No woman with his résumé would have a chance of becoming New York’s mayor." 

Goldberg herself brings up the comparison to AOC: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the great political talents of her generation, but I doubt she’d be taken seriously if she ran for New York mayor, despite being far more politically experienced than Yang." 

FROM THE EMAIL: James writes:

Has Goldberg never heard of Carly Fiorina?

MikeR writes:

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the great political talents of her generation, but I doubt she’d be taken seriously if she ran for New York mayor, despite being far more politically experienced than Yang." 

Non sequitur. Being very talented politically is a good reason to get elected to Congress, where politics is most of what you do. It is no reason at all to be elected mayor of New York City, where you have to run things competently. AOC has shown no talent for that and in fact has never even tried to do that in any phase of her life.

AND: bb says:

Bartending gets no respect. I've spent some time watching bartenders up close and I think bartending should be a prerequisite to being NYC mayor.

"For years I’ve told my clients to avoid talking about politics on the first date, but in D.C., and in a year like this one, that’s somewhat impossible. Plus, for Claire..."

"... who worked on the campaigns of Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton and is passionate about progressive issues, where someone lands on the political spectrum is very important. So, she flat-out asked him, 'Who did you vote for in the Democratic primary?' Ben stammered a bit. He revealed he admired Andrew Yang’s ideas but didn’t end up voting in the 2020 primary.... By this time, the conversation had started to drag and Pistachio needed to go outside to do her business. Ben asked for Claire’s number and texted her while they were still on the date to make sure she received it. A few minutes later, they said good night and signed off.... Claire had a burning question that couldn’t wait: 'I had to know what he thought of Andrew Yang running for New York City mayor.' She texted Ben that one question after the date. Not surprisingly, as part of the Yang Gang during the presidential race, Ben declared his admiration for Yang and confidence that he could be the right person to run the city. Then he followed up with, 'Totally fair question but only if you share your thoughts as well.' Feeling that there are many other candidates (in particular women of color) who would make better mayors, Claire was put off again by Ben’s politics and couldn’t bring herself to reply."

Writes dating coach Damona Hoffman, in "Date Lab: Talking politics on a first date is usually a no-no. But it couldn’t be avoided after a year like this one" (WaPo).

Pistachio is a dog, supposedly a Chihuahua, though it's huge. By the way, "Date Lab" sounds like a dog.

Anyway, throughout this article, before I even got to the part I'm quoting, I thought Ben was much better than Claire. In the end, he gave the date a 4.25 (out of 5) and she gave it a 3.5. They had no further contact.

Ben's statement "Totally fair question but only if you share your thoughts as well" is a bit devious. He's already answered the question, so there's no option to withdraw the question. She can only answer or be deemed unfair. And she doesn't answer! The truth is it's not about fairness. She genuinely only wants someone who shares her politics. That could have been known before the date was arranged, so she wasted his time. 

And maybe if he'd just been asked would you like to go out with a woman who will only be interested in you if you share her politics, he might have said no — even without first hearing what her politics were.

"As mayor, I will regularly get around the city by subway, bus, or bike, because that’s the way most New Yorkers get around..."

"... and that’s how I’ve been getting around for 25 years. I will build bus rapid transit networks like the 14th street busway in every borough. I will have a fully electric bus system by 2030. [inaudible 00:10:59] electric buses. New York can move our people around in a way that’s sustainable for our neighborhoods and our planet. Building this forward-thinking transit network will require municipal control of the city’s subways and buses. As mayor, I will fight to get control of our subways and buses so we can control our own destiny." 

Said Andrew Yang, announcing his candidacy for mayor of New York City.

What vision! The transportation solution for New York City is buses. Lots of buses. They'll be electric, so that's supposed to be good for the environment, but the method of getting around is the same old method. The bus! I've lived in NYC — 1973 to 1984 and 2007 to 2008 — and the last form of transportation I'd use is the bus. Maybe 3 or 4 times in the early 70s, and never again. 

The problems were not anything that would be helped by running the bus on a battery instead of gas. It was that buses were penned in by street traffic, so the wait could be terribly long and you'd know that once you get on, the ride would be slow. There you are, standing at street level, wondering why you didn't just keep walking and whether you'd be where you were going by now if you had.

I just said I have rig fatigue, but here are Democrats saying their own party is rigged, so that's kind of interesting.

From The Hill:

The DNC on Friday said it would drop the donor threshold for the Feb. 19 primary debate in Nevada. The move could open the door for Bloomberg, a billionaire who is refusing any donations to his White House bid, to win a spot at the event.

Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) presidential campaign ripped the DNC over its new debate qualifications, saying it is supporting “a rigged system.”

“To now change the rules in the middle of the game to accommodate Mike Bloomberg, who is trying to buy his way into the Democratic nomination, is wrong. That’s the definition of a rigged system,” said Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Sanders’s campaign....

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang [tweeted] "The DNC changing its debate criteria to ignore grassroots donations seems tailor-made to get Mike Bloomberg on the debate stage in February...."...

Businessman Tom Steyer [said]... “changing the rules now to accommodate Mike Bloomberg and not changing them in the past to ensure a more diverse debate stage is just plain wrong..." 

PLUS: "I watched the debate in Iowa here two weeks ago -- the all white debate -- and the fact that the Democratic, the DNC will not allow Cory Booker on that stage, will not allow Julian Castro on that stage, but they are going to allow Mike Bloomberg on the stage? Because he has a billion f*cking dollars!"

AND: It's not just changing the rules for the debates: "DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention/The talks reveal rising anxiety over the Vermont senator's momentum on the eve of voting" (Politico).

"Andrew’s personality is like a tuning fork realigning us with something we need to retrieve, taking us back to a more innocent time, making us remember to chuckle...."

"This is not an unserious issue at all, for that chuckle has more power to take us over the line in 2020 than does all the anger in the world. Quite simply, the demon doesn’t know how to eat it. Andrew is light in tone, but he is deep in substance."

View this post on Instagram

Part 3 of 3: It’s not a transactional politics, but a relational one, that will win in 2020. And that takes me to Andrew. Three personality characteristics define how Andrew comes across. They are self-confidence, levity, and positivity. Many believe these are less important than the details of his stances on health care, the economy, or foreign affairs. But such things are every bit as important as where he stands on those issues, because at a time like this the issues aren’t the only issue. The most important thing is that we win in 2020. Nothing, nothing, nothing is more important. We won’t beat Trump only on the issues; if that were the case, he wouldn’t be president today. We will beat him by forging an emotional connection with the American people that is more compelling than his. Self-confidence, levity and positivity are exactly what America has lost and needs to regain. It’s also what millions of Americans long for. Andrew’s personality is like a tuning fork realigning us with something we need to retrieve, taking us back to a more innocent time, making us remember to chuckle. There was a time, not so long ago, when America was self-confident and positive about our future. This is not an unserious issue at all, for that chuckle has more power to take us over the line in 2020 than does all the anger in the world. Quite simply, the demon doesn’t know how to eat it. Andrew is light in tone, but he is deep in substance. I know from first hand experience the breadth of his intellect and the expansiveness of his heart. That “humanity first” stuff applies not only to his policies but to how he goes through life. Bernie and Elizabeth will make it past Iowa and beyond; I admire them both, but right now they don’t need my help. I’m lending my support to Andrew in Iowa, hopefully to help him get past the early primaries & remind us not to take ourselves too seriously. We need that this year. We need to lighten up on a personal level, because the moment is so serious on a political level. Otherwise the months ahead will be too tough on all of us. The only one who’d be laughing at the end of the year is Trump. And we must not, must not, must not let that happen.

A post shared by Marianne Williamson (@mariannewilliamson) on Jan 22, 2020 at 9:01pm PST

"The classic image of the Tory, which holds from the 1700s to today, is that of a fat, self-satisfied landowner, generally complacent but..."

"... driven to red-faced distemper by anything that would intrude on the enjoyment of his privilege and the comforts of his estate....Yang seems to uniquely attract this kind of person — the recently established and self-regarding. His supporters include Tesla founder Elon Musk, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, rapper and actor Donald Glover, who threw an impromptu concert for Yang in December, Weezer lead singer Rivers Cuomo, and actor Nicholas Cage. They all in one way or another belong to a previous age, in which the pretensions of wealth and talent were given more deference. They are men accustomed to having their fanciful notions regarded with awe and respect. In the midst of or approaching middle age, they fear the loss of the world they could understand and master. The 17th century philosopher Spinoza asserted that every individual thing strives to persist in its existence, and these magnates certainly follow that universal law, resenting anything that would dilute or diminish their sense of singularity. In America, libertarianism used to attract people with this sensibility, but the era of Trump and populism has evidently made libertarians realize that 'Leave me alone' is no longer a viable political position; they have moved on to 'If I give you some money, will you leave me alone?' in the form of the Freedom Dividend, Yang’s Universal Basic Income proposal. The New American Tories have adopted the classic Tory answer to social unrest — paternalism."

From "Andrew Yang and the New American Tories/What links celebrity Yang supporters like Dave Chappelle, Rivers Cuomo, and Norm MacDonald?" (The Outline).

Andrew Yang, who says he's "a pro-choice leader," has an intelligent answer to what he can offer to people who oppose abortion.

Earlier today on his bus, @AndrewYang was asked how he can appeal to single issue religious voters on the issue of abortion. He said "I am a pro-choice leader," but explained how a supporter told him "the freedom dividend is the most pro-life policy they have ever seen." pic.twitter.com/8CMlWDl8an

— Adam Brewster (@adam_brew) December 14, 2019

"As I lay there, I could feel the medicine take over my entire body, as if an extraterrestrial had entered my bloodstream and was taking over. I could feel it doing its work on my brain, repairing the virus known as addiction."

Says a user of Ibogaine, quoted in "Silicon Valley’s psychedelic wonder drug is almost here/A new startup called MindMed could have the key to providing the upsides of psychedelic drugs for both focus and addiction treatment—while cutting out the downsides of tripping" (Fast Company).

Ibogaine is found in a woody West African shrub that sprouts orange fruits like upside-down tear drops. In Gabon and Cameroon, members of the Bwiti religion eat rootbark from the Iboga Tabernanthe bush as part of a ceremonial confirmation of their faith. Americans have sought out this rite of passage for decades in hopes of enlightenment. In blog posts and on Reddit threads, ibogaine enthusiasts detail how the rootbark renders intense visions, hallucinations, and deep vortexes of memory followed by introspection. It can take days to go through.

Ibogaine? Isn't that the drug Hunter S. Thompson said Ed Muskie was on... back in the days when fake news was trippy and funny — a way to smoke out the squares who couldn't see a joke:

While in Wisconsin covering the primary campaign for the United States presidential election of 1972, gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson submitted a satirical article to Rolling Stone accusing Democratic Party candidate Edmund Muskie of being addicted to ibogaine. Many readers, and even other journalists, did not realize that the Rolling Stone piece was facetious. The ibogaine assertion, which was completely unfounded, did a significant amount of damage to Muskie's reputation, and was cited as a factor in his loss of the nomination to George McGovern. Thompson later said he was surprised that anyone believed it.

I have that text. Excerpt:

The Muskie nightmare is beginning to look more and more like a major political watershed for the Democratic Party....  Big Ed was supposed to be their ticket to Miami, where they planned to do business as usual once again, and keep the party at least livable, if not entirely healthy. All Muskie had to do, they said, was keep his mouth shut and act like Abe Lincoln.

The bosses would do the rest. As for that hare-brained bastard McGovern, he could take those reformist ideas he’d been working on, and jam them straight up his ass. A convention packed wall to wall with Muskie delegates—the rancid cream of the party, as it were—would make short work of McGovern’s Boy Scout bullshit.

That was four months ago, before Muskie began crashing around the country in a stupid rage and destroying everything he touched. First it was booze, then Reds, and finally over the brink into Ibogaine … and it was right about that time that most of the Good Ole Boys decided to take another long look at Hubert Humphrey. He wasn’t much; they all agreed on that—but by May he was all they had left.

Who won?

Who won tonight’s Democratic debate?

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 16, 2019

Oh, really?

That's a trend for me? Okay... I'll go this far...

In case your wondering, #Yanggang at around midnight last night completely uncoordinated and last minute still was able to pull together and trend #SorryChuckTodd. We definitely should not be underestimated! #yang2020 https://t.co/YSrf7ZLs46

— Tatted Lawyer 🧢 (@MichaelSatoshi) October 12, 2019

I looked at that long enough to think: some social-media, Yang-related thing. Beyond that, I see the sun is shining and the real world exists.