misteraven

They're both ridiculous. At the end of the day and all intellectual conversation aside, can't believe we're stuck having to decide between those two morons.

You just won the internet for today.

Has anyone stopped to consider another perspective regarding Trump testing positive for Corona? That this story and his progress will very likely dominate the news cycle for the next two weeks. That even according to the CDC and despite his age and the likelihood that he isn't the healthiest human specimen to be found that it is exceedingly unlikely that he'll be hospitalized, let alone die. That most likely he'll reappear having stated that he barely felt and no doubt that inevitably the hydroxychloroquine that he's been touting about all along was the cure. How that in turn might help validate a lot of what the media has slammed him for and that perhaps some of the undecided / swing voters might just be like, "fuck this guy is an ass every time he opens his mouth, but he's not necessarily wrong, at least some of the time." Especially compared to a wet noodle like Biden that might or might not have dementia, but is certainly not one to have a lot of confidence in regards to general health and that has spent 50 years in politics at the most senior levels and still can't really point to any particularly notable achievement and that even most liberals only see as an option because at least he's not Trump? Anyhow, Trump is still a clown, but as a human being I wouldn't wish ill on him. But just thought I'd throw out some food for thought rather than again just looking at the low hanging fruit of this particular topic.

Appreciate the responses... Will respond to a few of them, to add in my two cents. It does make a difference. Both legally and in terms of perception. Being officially designated a terrorist group is an entirely different set of protocols from simply a hate crime. For starters, as a designation it means that it does not require a charge, jury of your peers and a conviction to classify. It's a very significant action. Nice! DM me if you want your old account or want it merged. Welcome back regardless. I've tried most my life to not fall into any classification to be honest. Seems like too much work to call into a specific group and then attempt to uphold its trappings. Just makes sense to me to pick and chose as things present and make judgement calls about what makes sense or what speaks to me. I have no real opinion on Qanon and really don't know a lot about it. That said my instinct is that there likely was an individual or perhaps collective with inside information and that it would inevitably lead to copy cats. That anything like that, which could possibly threaten anyone (and especially many) in any type of powerful position would likely trigger damage control and there's plenty of precedent that is not conspiracy theory but proven fact, where intelligence agencies and third parties working on their behalf would run disinformation campaigns and other measures to muddy the waters or otherwise hide shit in plain site. But mostly, this is only speculation and I try to keep my attention on my circle of control rather than my circle of concern. Gotta say though, the IG account for the guy that owns that place is concerning and seems often when there's smoke, you can eventually find fire. Unsure I'm actually understanding that first sentence, but if so... Where are you gathering that Proud Boys are fighting for "white hegemony". That term in itself is just a synonym for white supremacy. I've stated before that so far, I'm not seeing evidence of that, only mainstream media and social labeling them as such. I've provided several examples to show that many of their members aren't even white, which is absolutely conclusive evidence considering we can look at history and see how Italy was an ally to Nazi Germany despite not bearing the characteristics defined as being inherent to the "master race", but it certainly would make me question that they're white supremacists. Since I can't find any evidence of them announcing any sort of racist rhetoric, let alone inciting violence against people of color or minorities, I'd be curious to know if you've seen evidence that I have not that has led you to that conclusion? If so, please share though my posts have tried to bring focus on how both groups are being positioned and not at all promoting or criticizing either. Your second sentence mentions useful cooperators, which is a much different thing than literal core members being people of color or in one instance married with kids to a women of color. But again, you're making a conclusive statement and I'm hoping you might be able to share the evidence of it. (Side note, I do mean that with all due respect and not as the usual internet bickering to just throw the burden of proof on you. I'm very curious about it as its the dominant narrative out there, yet after extensive searching, I cant find evidence of them being racist. In fact, compared to Antifa, I can't even really find evidence of them being particularly violent either. Kind of makes sense logically that if you got a bunch of dudes open carrying guns, that if there was any expectation, let alone track record for actual violence, they probably wouldn't be allowed to keep showing up and rallying while loaded down with guns and tactical gear. But again, I can't find the evidence so maybe you or another member can share it?). Also, outside of government itself all violence is extrajudicial, but again, where's the videos showing them partaking in violence. Closest I got was the articles about John Kinsman being arraigned for a street brawl he got into in New York. Nobody shot, nobody stabbed, no one dragged from a car, not even much mention of anything other than the broad statement that he was in a street brawl. As for the last sentence, you're again making an assumption. You call it a "dog whistle", which is much different than a statement of fact. It doesn't preclude that its certainly possible, but I believe you can also make an argument that perhaps their ideology is rooted in what we might refer to ass classic American values. Obviously we might also say that racism could be a thread in the fabric of the Nation, but then again, so can apple pie, baseball games and the nuclear family. Same way I wouldn't automatically judge a person of color or a person from the middle east or wherever else, unsure why we should be so quick to judge a white person. Stereotypes seem like a precursor to bias and discrimination yet everyone is quick to assume a white guy with a beard cosplaying in tactical gear must be a racist. But again, many of these guys aren't even white. In any case, I hope to not distract you or those reading along with discussions about how racist the Proud Boys are or aren't. Again, I think the heart of the discussion is really about how the mainstream media is coordinating to position topics in very specific ways as evidenced by how inconsistent it is once you look at the number of references, language used to describe and other mechanisms.

Can you give some detail on this? Kinda weary to read a book that has been translated. Did you feel there were any issues with that? What's the general plot?

Bumped to the next page for those of you in the back.

Surprised to not see more commentary on my last post. Took me a little time to dig all that shit up, but mostly I found it super interesting so surprised more people didn't jump in on it. @Mercerpost that followed it seems to have jumped back onto the original tract or maybe you didn't read it? Its not really about which of the two camps is right. Like you, I believe they're both clown shows. That's really shouldn't even be the conversation despite it being solely what is occupying everyones attention. Lie so many other contentious topics of the last few years I feel we are all missing the heart of the matter, which I would guess is why the discussions become so contentious. Doesn't anyone else see the programming happening with how these types of topics are communicated? Even after taking the time to layout an alternate narrative to whats clogging the MSM and social airwaves and even laying down tangible evidence that points to how everyone is being programmed, there's still the few people that pop up and fully embrace that programming. No counter argument, let alone any sort of exploration or suggestion of evidence to support their view... Simply a response that is clearly rooted in an emotional reaction that continues to perpetuate the narrative. In this case... Proud Boys must all be racist. They "look" like racists and the media has been repeating it like a mantra since they first popped it, so it must be true even though my own eyeballs can see that so many of them are not even white. It's like we can all look up at the sky... We see its blue, but the MSM and memes all tell us It is indeed red. Then an echo chamber develops around it with the usual gaslighting and social pressures that if you don't acknowledge that the sky is red and rally behind that fact that, that you must be evil. Only an evil person would see the sky as anything except red. And for those of you on the fence that are unsure what color the sky is, you guys are all a part of the problem. The fact that you don't heed the calling and help us convince everyone else that the sky is red, means you're as bad as those that keep claiming its blue. Oh, and if you decide to try and question if the sky is anything except red or try to understand what leads to the color of the sky, you must be one of those kooky conspiracy nuts and by default, those guys are part of the evil crowd too. See how that works? It's literally cult like behavior. You create a dynamic in which there is no viable alternative except to join the cult. If you disagree, you're wrong. If you sit it out, you're essentially even worse. Anyhow, we can keep going in circles about how stupid either group is, which will obviously be split into the same tired partisan lines or we can have a far more interesting conversation about what is really going on here. @6Pennies... I'm sure you have more to say on this subject. Lets hear it.

Intersting. I did a reverse image search to verify the validity of that and dude indeed has a black wide and a couple kids with her. While digging around I stumbled on a ton of hate, including these below. Its really pretty crazy to see the confirmation bias truly blind people. Rather than start to question the narrative that he's racist because he's a high profile "Proud Boy" member, they instead come up with the idea that he's a racist with a secret love of black women. In fact, how ironic is the tweet? A black dude that is using a slur to describe the black women here because there's no other possibility except that the white guy is a racist. Pretty unreal... https://mtonews.com/racist-proud-boy-john-kinsman-arrested-has-black-wife

I stand corrected. I spent an hour trying to find an official website with no luck. Good catch. *Edit: link doesnt seem to work.

So for fun and to further our exploration of this topic, lets take a brief look at how core information / media outlets on the internet are covering these two concepts (Antifa / Proud Boys). And again, I don't support either group. This is simply us exploring a topic and me attempting to look past the surface as to what is driving what we're seeing... The beginnings of an attempt to look at the framework and engineering with less emphasis on the details of the facade that covers that framework. From this exploration, we can made a jusgment call as to whether we're seeing bias, which in turn can be interpreted as what might be shaping opinions, especially when this is likely the basis for all the conversation on social that has largely replaced any widespread attempts at applying reason, logic or the sort of healthy skepticism that leads individuals to challenge narratives and seek truth. Wikipedia's result when you search "Proud Boys"... Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys Wikipedia's result when you search "Antifa"... Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa Now we don't have to take this very significant difference at face value. A reasonable argument for why searching "Antifa" takes you to an index instead of a page is that there is more history and therefore more usage / context. But from this index, we have 13 options that describe the organization. The only one that seems to apply to the subject here is possibly the last option, "Rose City Antifa". I've never really seen it designated as such in the mainstream media, which begs its own question, but lets have a look at the entry... Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Antifa Now, putting a little more effort into it, I was able to come across what appears to be an official Wikipedia entry for the "Antifa" as it relates to the discussion. Curious why it wouldn't be a primary link on the index when searching this subject from within the USA, but I won't speculate. On first glance, it appears to be pretty thorough, judging its length. We all know that the basic summary is the entry block of text, so to not extend my little dissertation to a true wall of text, we'll simply focus on that and you guys can continue our research and see if you can gather more insight into what motives might exist behind these entries. Pretty interesting to see how both organizations are described. Opening line for the Proud Boys entry: "The Proud Boys is a far-right[1][2][3][4] and neo-fascist[5][6][7][8] male-only[9][10] organization that promotes and engages in political violence.". Opening line for the Antifa entry: "Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] is an anti-fascist action and left-wing political movement in the United States[2][3][4][5] comprising an array of autonomous[6][7] groups that aim to achieve their objectives through the use of both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform." Now attempting to truly set any bias aside, do these descriptions match up with what we've been seeing so far? Even accounting for heavy bias in coverage and opinion, has anyone seen less than a dozen individual instances of violence from protests that clearly show mobs dressed in black and carrying shields and waving flags bearing the Antifa logo? Can anybody dig up even a single similar video of mob violence on behalf of the Proud Boys, let alone many? Did you happen to notice that the Proud Boys entry also includes related entries at the bottom of the page for "White Nationalism"? There is a brief mention in the opening block about it "Officially rejecting white supremacy", but it is interesting to analyze the description of them and that other than that single sentence, the entire description is that they're white supremacists with really only the single takeaway that they are indeed a racist organization bent on violence, rooted in neo-fascist ideology. Would indeed seem an odd pairing when we can see so many of the members of Proud Boys are clearly not even white. Also interesting is even after digging around, I can't find a website for them or even any kind of official account for them. Curious how the entries author was able to so clearly define them as having a "neo-fascist" ideology or that women aren't allowed to be members when again, we can identify females mixed into the crowd shots that show their groups. Obviously that isn't irrefutable evidence, but with no official website or account pages I'd be curious to know how thy were able to so clearly define these very significant characteristics, especially at a time when most of these fringe groups / movements - from Antifa to BLM to Proud Boys - seem to not be centrally controlled or posses an obvious command and control structure. Also interesting to me Is that besides being described as racists when there's clearly minorities in their makeup, not having women members when you can see women in their mob, or being fascist when I'm not seeing much evidence of them bullying people to accept any sort of ideology at all, that there isn't much of the same rush to categorize Antifa or BLM as violent or extremists or fascist when we can see videos that could serve as a strong argument for it (even if its the exception and not the rule for those organizations). In fact, I've heard this fact exactly used to explain away some of the bad behaviors of both Antifa and BLM... A few bad apples that don't represent the organization / movement and that the protests are mostly peaceful. Again, not trying to encourage any sort of support or hostility towards either group here. Only attempting to analyze how they're being positioned by authoritative information sources and media. So for those all important "undecided" we spoke of early on in this discussion, what do you think the take away is if your basing opinion on the official narrative? Continuing on... Google search for "Proud Boys"... Link: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ei=gA12X67ROtHL-gST1JuADg&q=proud+boys&oq=proud+boys Versus Google search for "Antifa"... Link: https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=aw12X-H1LMbH-gSElL2ADg&q=antifa Even discounting the actual result contents, does anybody find it unusual that the Proud Boys, an organization that according to Wikipedia was founded in 2016, but only has really been a conversation for a couple weeks now has 515,000,000 results versus "Antifa", an organization with roots going back to pre WW2, but with a history in the USA that certainly far predates 2016 and a large focus of the cultural conversation and news for many months, it would seem counter intuitive to see 2139.13% more entries for Proud Boys versus Antifa. Lets search for BLM, despite it being a tougher comparison since its a 3 letter acronym that until recently was understood to be the federal Bureau of Land Management... Link: https://www.google.com/search?q=blm Again, pretty fascinating result... 116,000 total results for a movement that has dominated media and social attention for at least the last half year and arguably for the last couple years. An organization and movement that has been embraced by corporate America, professional sports and probably center stage since since just after Trump was elected. Do you find it unusual that collectively, Antifa and BLM as topics represent is just over 25% (26.99%) of the results as Proud Boys? Anyhow, I feel the need to again reiterate that I'm not advocating for Proud Boys. I know very little about them. Likewise, I'm not denouncing Antifa or BLM here either. I'm merely attempting to bring attention to what I believe to be a very obvious bias, that in turn, I would speculate is fanning the flames of violence and division. What I've posted here is not the smoking gun, end all - be all irrefutable evidence of this, but merely a first stab and looking past the surface to try and understand the mechanisms behind what we're seeing. Naturally this leads to the next question after the "what", which is "who" and "why". If you guys are at all interested we can keep exploring and discussing and start to speculate on obvious questions such as how can one benefit from the dynamic we're witnessing and who sits in a position to be able to benefit from it when its executed successfully as we're seeing? If nothing else, I sincerely hope I've at least planed a seed in the minds of those that took the time to read this whole thing. Something that will flourish into a healthy skepticism of the world around you, which in turn will compel you to dig beneath the surface and only use the stupid memes everyone embraces as fact as a starting point to dig into the truth behind the who, what and why so you can begin really understand the world around you.

Yeah man, hopefully I’ve done a fair job on leading by example on how we can discuss contentious topics, explore ideas and perhaps even disagree while remaining respectful of each other and productive towards the overall conversation. In any case, I can’t provide a proper response typing this out on my phone. I’ll loop back when I’m at my computer so I can hopefully provide a valid response that doesn’t suffer from too many auto correct typos.

“Extreme” is a subjective term, unless we set a standard to define it. That said, as extreme as things have become, where cities are being set on fire, there’s firefights in the street and mobs of people are blocking off streets and dragging people from there cars... Bunch of dudes wearing Fred Perry and tactical gear looks ridiculous, but is sort of a response I’d expect to everything else that’s happening. In my view, all of it is extreme, but I’d focus more on the cause, than the effect and the Proud Boys so far, from what I’ve seen, aren’t setting shit on fire and going out of their way to bully their ideology on people. Again, not a supporter or fan. Just providing a different perspective rather than falling in line with the mainstream narrative.

Our principals of freedom are built in n the constitution and most specifically the Bill of Rights. The United States was very specifically engineered to not be a Democracy and if you’re going to trust your fellow man to grant you your freedom or even trust them to maintain it on your behalf, you’re going to watch it erode. Exactly what we’re seeing happen right now since we’ve strayed so far from it. Honestly the real solution is to break the consolidation of power up so that it’s back to being exceedingly limited at the Federal level and goes back to State and especially local governance. This way when you see regions / states like California grossly mismanaged their duties as government, you at least have the option to get the fuck out and put down roots in a region / state that is more aligned with your views and aspirations in your own pursuit of happiness. But yes indeed, I do not believe that very one should be required to vote and I do not believe the majority of people are at all qualified. I see it little different than asking the average person on the street for medical advice. Obviously most are woefully unqualified to do that either. But considering so few people understand how our government even works, then largely gather their understanding of the mechanisms of policy off memes on social media... Google how many people are unable to locate North Korea on a map. Then you want them to effectively vote on a candidate that has a wise plan for foreign policy and the ability to effectively execute that plan? Interesting how often you hear that it’s “your responsibility to vote”, yet how little attention goes towards educating people on topics. But tragic how now we’ve reached a stage where access and exposure to knowledge is actually weaponized. Anyhow, that’s kinda how you end up at the point where we are... Deciding between Trump and Biden. Two train wrecks with the nation at each other’s throats arguing over who’s the biggest liar and least qualified, based on talking points they skimmed off a meme on Instagram.

Also kind of interesting how social media political pundits seem to be ignoring discussion on the $500 billion Trump just announced to improve low income black communities or how he’s just classified the KKK as a terrorist group (along with Antifa). Again, not a fan or supporter but if you’re going to pass meaningful judgement on his actions, how you going to cherry pick like that? More interesting still are the ones that do acknowledge it are just saying it’s all half hearted pandering, yet don’t bother recognizing that Biden, with his 1994 crime bill created the literal cornerstone for systemic racism.

Might possibly help explain the situation in Miami, but again, seemed even more diverse looking at the west coast rallies. Even so, not sure a Cuban that thinks he’s white can masquerade as a white nationalist since that’s what the MSM and social are painting them to be. example post off IG stories:

Interesting perspective. I kinda feel the exact opposite... Limit who gets to vote so that they need to earn their way for the privilege. Minimum amount of military or volunteer service or some sort of experience that helps prove that they have a minimum amount of perspective and social / community involvement and sacrifice that proves they deserve to have a say in how people are governed. Than make it so those that run for office need 3x the qualification as those that vote them in.

And for the record, since everything seems to require a disclaimer these days... I’m not a proud boy fan or supporter. Honestly I know little about them. I just figured I’d search it a bit when they became a topic, especially when it became obvious there was a lot of effort towards painting then in a very negative light. I don’t doubt there’s likely some dumbass racists that wandered into their ranks thinking it was something else, but when I really looked closely at photos, I saw plenty of non whites mixed into their crowds and for the Florida stuff I saw, noticed a lot of the names were Spanish (Cuban) names. Anyhow, amazing how a lot of the photos I’m referencing seem to now be kind of buried, but here’s a couple to support what I’m saying... Doesn’t really look like the types you’d expect in a white power gang.

Have you taken any time to dig into who the Proud Boys actually are? It was founded by a black Cuban guy. A lot of the key people in that organization are black and minority. I know the MSM is in over drive to paint it as a white supremacist movement but if you look at their crowds, many are clearly Asian, Hispanic and black. Interestingly, it largely breaks down into the racial segmentation that the country basically breaks down into. *Edit... My mistake, founder of the Florida chapter is black and cuban. Growing up in Miami, I pay extra attention to Florida news and misread a write up on it. That said, google searching did show a ton of black, Latin and Asian in their ranks, especially on the west coast.

Tried to convince you to knock up an American chick while you had the chance. Now you and your Canadian gf are going to have to make a run for the border.

Can be fun to speculate but these days, you're shunned as a kook "conspiracy theorist" if you make any attempts. Amazing to see actually, that they've used Qanon as a vehicle to dub anyone that discounts the official narrative as a "right winger" or even "racist" if they don't fall in line. Scary shit. That said, I do believe Soros is on the visible edge of whatever group that is.

Off topic, but who were you on here before your current user name? Its okay of you dont want to say, but pretty certain you arent new. Regardless, appreciate the informed position on your comments.

We'll have to wait and see but I doubt it. Hillary was at least qualified even if you didn't buy into her position or trust her motives. Suppose you could argue Biden should be qualified after 50+ years in senior political positions, but it's pretty obvious he has major issues and that it's probably likely, if not probable, that casting a vote for him is actually putting Kamala Harris in control. Even if Biden is breathing at the end of his term, its pretty clear whats left of his mental faculty will never survive the rigors and stress of that job for very long. I don't disagree that a lof of the younger people that rallied for Bernie will throw in with Biden, but it won't be enough to make a difference. Biden has no chance, and thats not because I like Trump. Unseating an incumbent is an uphill battle to begin with, but Biden just has too much working against him. He's too old, too much a part of the establishment (that even the left is starting to turn against) and is a train wreck every time he opens his mouth. They've literally thrown the kitchen sink at Trump since jump street and dude is still swinging. I think the play is that they're hoping to get Biden to the finish line, will muddy the waters to contest the close win Trump will achieve and instead hope to win back the Senate, which I also believe is unlikely. I believe with how bad the world is right now most of those undecided people will begrudgingly vote Trump. We'll have to wait and see, but I think most of us will agree that regardless who wins, just over half the nation will be ready to burn the country down and that they've managed to whip people up into such a frenzy that I doubt it can be kept from exploding for very much longer. Crazy how "civil war" is being discussed as a credible outcome by pretty mainstream voices. No idea what that could look like in this day and age or how many people truly have the guts to go that path, but I think its obvious this train is going over the cliff no matter who wins. Shit is spiraling towards a crash and burn unlike anything this country has seen. I think the real conversation is who's orchestrating it, because it isn't the two clowns that were debating last night.

Please explain why you believe Biden is more capable of consolidating support than Hillary was. Biden can hardly communicate anything coherently. It's obvious there's some major issue(s) going on with him and I find it incredulous that anyone has any faith that he's capable of affecting any real change after a literal lifetime in senior political positions, including 8 years as vice president. I know it sounds like a meme, but if he was going to do anything significant, he'd have already done it. Ironic that other than him being vice president, the most notable achievement of his career was the crime bill he authored back in 1994. (Side note: Also amazing to see how largely liberal media outlets are scrambling to explain away incredibly unbalanced and consequential that was to black / poor / minority communities). Can't argue your last sentence though.

I appreciate you explaining that for those that aren't familiar with the distinction. Suppose the point I was making is that those two groups are essentially the same at this point. There's a few threads on this subject so unsure if this is the right one to stray and start laying down predictions, but fuck it... I have a few minutes so I'll indulge a bit with a rant to explain mine. The early voting, to me, was nonsense. Same with the mailed in ballots. That anyone would cast a vote before there was an opportunity for a debate (if not several) between candidates is just ridiculous, especially considering how Biden has been largely kept out of the spotlight. Now admittedly, the debate (which I'm guessing will be the only one) was a shit show by pretty much any reasonable standard. The bar for Biden was so freakin low that basically if he wasn't caught snoring during a live broadcast (again), he was going to get a passing grade. Also, doesn't take bias to have come to the conclusion that Trump was debating Wallace almost more than he was debating Biden. Crazy that with the bar that low, Trump still couldn't walk away with a clear win, so that speaks for the dumpster fire that is. Now going back to voting... Elections are determined by swing voters that largely reside in a handful of battle ground states. Politicians don't give a fuck about anyone other than this small group, which is why they hardly go through the motions intended to not bleed off any of their base, and instead focus real efforts towards those swing voters in the battle ground states. This is why the early voting is hardly going to affect anything at all... The people that are all vocal about voting and the ones rushing out to vote early are the base that would have only voted that specific candidate regardless. Nothing short of that candidate murdering a kid on live TV (and even then I'd bet it could be spun in this climate) would get that person to vote the other way. Seeing as how evenly the two party system divides people, all of that will be a wash, as usual. As for the mailed in ballots, its only purpose is to muddy the waters enough to contest the outcome. How anyone could see it as anything more is simply playing into bias. There isn't a reason in the world, even in the midst of a "pandemic" and with social distancing and other protocols in place to ensure public safety that they couldn't establish proper in person polling. Considering the logistics involved with ensuring the integrity elections, "coupled with everyone screaming how this is once again the most important election of our lifetime", doesn't it seem odd that we'd entrust such an important process to mailed in ballots handled by an operation that pretty much everyone recognizes as unreliable (some might argue incompetent)? Further to that, can you imagine what is involved in collecting millions of physical documents, sorting them, verifying their validity, tallying the multitude of selections accurately and doing all of that across hundreds of locations that are largely staffed by temporary labor? Seriously, does anyone actually trust the integrity of that even if you don't wander down the rabbit hold of conspiracy? If you take a look at how close races are run and look at how tight the 2016 election went, coupled with how obvious and vehemently coordinated Trump's opposition has been, and then add all the hyper polarization and social unrest there is currently, short of a landslide victory, the next best thing is a race so tight that the pendants and MSM can coordinate communications that it was rigged. There's zero chance either side can't point at the mailed in ballots after the fact and not beat their dream loudly about how it was rigged and then use that as the basis to dispute the results, regardless of who wins. Reality is that the mail in ballots are an insurance policy to contest an undesired result and have absolutely zero to do with compassion for the health and safety of the voters. Anyhow, kinda went off topic, but in any case... disaffected, disenfranchised, bewildered, etc... All of that is the same thing as undecided in my view. There's always going to be a contingent of agnostic as well, but those that somehow have not been sucked into the echo chamber of one side or the other and haven't completely lost faith in the system... I'm betting thats a growing demographic. Growing almost as fast as the inevitable next phase of that, which is to simply realize that its all theatrics and that voting for the vast majority of us truly has no affect at all since most of us aren't that small minority of swing voters in battle ground states. Honestly, what I'm waiting for is the strategy to divide everyone through all this hyper polarized political nonsense backfires when all that anger turns towards the politicians instead of each other.